Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Russians


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Good Russians

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Redirect to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine contested by creator. Fundamentally a propaganda expression used primarily within Russia to identify those supporting the conflict. Unlike Good Germans after WWII to identify those against the regime, this seems the opposite. Searching for the term returns some results, though it should not be conflated with those which use the term as part of something more general. I think at best it's WP:TOOSOON to draw any conclusions as to it's long-term noteworthiness. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia,  and Ukraine. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't really understand the nom. The phrase seems widely in use, particularly in Russian media. There is clearly a war-of-words between the participants in the conflict, but I'm not sure it is really a valid policy reason to delete to suggest that the content is likely to be disputed. Maybe it should be. JMWt (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @JMWt: My concerns are around how notable the expression is at this time, not least that it can have starkly different interpretations based on where it's being used. The conflict is not at the stage where such a term can be reliably considered noteworthy, being mindful to keep an objective outlook as it could stir up some strong opinions. I redirected for that reason, to preserve the history if such a time came that viable development could occur, but this was reverted. Thus, it was then either kept as-is or offered to the community for discussion, so I chose the latter. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: More RUSUKR war cruft, this time in neologism form. Some limited usages of this term is not enough to demonstrate notability at this point in time. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as soon as possible. I am from Ukraine. The article context is currently wrong and misleading. I suspect that the author either 1) not a Ukrainian-speaker or 2) did this on purpose, because they got exactly the opposite meaning. Article reference #3 clearly explains (in Ukrainian) that 'good Russians' are passive opposition to Russian war politic (similarly to Good Germans) and debates whether Ukrainians should consider all Russians as their enemies or not.
 * Such debate has sprung a meme-reference wave from radical Ukrainians, who started calling war casualties 'Good Russians', implying that only only a dead Russian can become a good one.
 * This term itself has already become a staple catchphrase among Ukrainians addressing Russians, so it is notable at this point. However, an article like this must go through AfC process. I urge you to please delete this as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, the article is intentionally misleading. And of course writing this article based only on partisan Ukrainian sources is just nonsense. Portraying Maksim Katz as a pro-Russian influencer is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The phrase has very different meanings in Russia and Ukraine, and elsewhere depending on your point of view. We shouldn't be guiding readers to one side or the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I know it's weird for someone who created the article to support its deletion but I've realized that I've unintentionally misleaded people so I support the deletion of the article. RowanJ LP (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Ukrainian so I had to do a manual translate, if you could help out and change the article a bit to show the true meaning about the term please do so, and I'm sorry for the misleading article. RowanJ LP (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @RowanJ LP: Although I think you had good intentions, writing such an article when you aren't a native speaker, about a conflict which is very divisive and bound to bring up some strong feeling, is unwise. I also am not a native speaker of the language so it wasn't immediately evident to me the extent of how misleading it was compared to the citations, but I could see that in it's current form it was problematic. It is possible that the term/concept, in time, could become notable which is why I redirected, but the concerns about the current state are reasonable. Fair enough though for you accepting the concerns raised here. Perhaps moving forward, any such articles you want to write are best sent via WP:AFC for some scrutiny. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete : As written, it is completely contrary to any meaning that I've encountered. As @MitYehor pointed out, the article directly contradicts at least one of the sources.  In addition, it leaves out a great deal, which if the article were kept, it should include. And the breadth of meanings/implications of the actual usage is quite broad, so I don't think a rewrite would resolve  the problems. Radzy0 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:SIGCOV. It appears to exist, but the current stub is a hot mess. It is not obvious if the translations are correct. In any case, the grammar is terrible and the sourcing is shallow. It appears to be a very bad Google or AI chat translation of an article. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, per war cruft, POV and WP:TNT. Does not meet Wikipedia standards. Kierzek (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, there's not much to add here so I join the rationale of other editors. Neologism of dubious encyclopedic value. --Killuminator (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.