Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is tendentious original research. The notion of "authoritarian regime" is subjective, for starters. There is nowhere on the planet where a list like this has been compiled, for seconds. Nor is the notion of "support" defined or definable in any objective manner. The bottom line is that this is an exercise in political storytelling rather than a serious encyclopedic topic or a list which provides any navigational functionality. Carrite (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I also forgot to mention that this combines the Soviet Union and Russia as if they are equivalent entities. The former included the latter, among other nationalities. There have been multiple regime changes in each over time to boot. One word summary: blech. Carrite (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree, as I have never seen an article like this in any scholarly (or even popular) work in my life; the page is full of POVs, original research and misleading edits, and is of very dubious value. We live in a world where there is cooperation in different areas between one-party and multi-party states, monarchies and republics, presidential and parliamentary systems, authoritarian and democratic countries, etc., and I have no idea who would decide to create a list of "monarchical regimes supported by Great Britain", "republican regimes supported by France", and so on, especially when the authors don't see a difference between "supporting a political regime" and "signing an agreement with another country". It's definitely not an encyclopedic article. Alter Z (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. User Alter Z is an SPA account with only several edits. Based on their edit history, the account was created specifically to revert my edits (two reverts were made during 30 minutes after my edits) and complain about me on ANI. This looks like a "disruption only" account. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks. Indeed, I'm new here and have had to register here in order to restore the neutrality of the page and revert two of your edits in the aforementioned article, but it's not my fault that you were violating WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV there and pushing your bias. Alter Z (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is customary on AfD to discount votes by accounts who made just a few edits. Now, can you please explain why my edits were a violation of anything when I fully explained my edits on article talk page, ,? Also, how did it happen that you created an account to repeatedly revert my edits during 30 minutes ,. BTW, based on your comments, you probably edited before from another account.My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've actually explained my point on the talk page and this is obviously not the right place for repeating my arguments against your edit. And if you like to know whether I'm an experienced editor or not, I gained some experience in making a number of anonymous edits a year ago. And I have been watching that article for about a month (thanks to IPs who were regularly filling it with new content), which is why I have registered and reacted. And if my vote won't be counted, then OK, I don't mind. Alter Z (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany was in fact officially considered as an ally by the Soviet government during a period of time. That was a sudden turnaround in the official Soviet press after a period when Germans were labeled "Nazi" by the Soviet propaganda. The turnaround was needed to sell the official part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact within the country. That was mentioned even in the official Soviet history textbooks printed for schoolchildren. There is nothing disputable here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to flood the page by reposting your marginal opinion, as it has little to nothing to do with my argumentation on the talk page and misses the point of what I have said. This is not to mention that Germany wasn't officially considered an ally neither then nor before. Alter Z (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The alliance to attack and separate Poland is not my opinion, but a historical fact. Also check this. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, original research as well summarized by the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and a good handful of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 07:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion: separate this article into two different list. Soviet Union and Russia part. This would really improve its quality. To claim that the article is basically meaningless is a great fail. I would like to point outthere are a couple of similar lists. Specifically, the "brother" of this article []. Do we delete all of them? I think both of them or none of them. Gabor vasarus (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for the very vague inclusion criteria (the definition of "support" bothers me more than "authoritarian", but the nomination is correct that both terms are slippery things), which manage to combine everything from foreign aid in early 2018 to full-blown puppet governments of the Eastern Bloc three decades or more ago. The article cited by the editor above me is one which may well warrant attention here as well, WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding. Separation of one poorly-conceived list into its constituent parts, though, would only result in multiple poorly-conceived articles, which doesn't resolve the issues of the original and if anything multiplies them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem with the definition (and misuse) of "support", indeed, is most likely the most important one, as there is no difference made between actual allies, trade partners, and so on. Profitable agreements, common cooperation in different areas, even unwanted but cost-effective relations between the countries are all confused and present as nothing but direct regime support. The reader is fooled into believing that every allegedly authoritarian political regime listed is/was deliberately and willingly supported by Russia/Soviet Union, just because of dubious WP:POV/WP:SYNTH/WP:OR arguments pointing at some sort of cooperation between them. Cooperation is thus equal to backing a certain political system in another country, even if no such thing is evident from the sources, and this naturally results in WP:SYNTH, WO:OR and WP:POV issues. However ridiculous it may sound to a historian, even the Nazi regime in Germany was listed as "Soviet-supported", based on WP:SYNTH argumentation and regardless of the fact that both of these regimes were rivaling, antagonistic, preparing for war one against the other and playing a complicated diplomatic game against each other while formally being good neighbors (Mr. Coffman, himself a historian, thanked me for removing that part from the list, though there was an attempt to restore it). This is just one example of how the vague inclusion criteria allow editors to oversimplify and misrepresent things in order to make them fit with their preconceived opinions and present some kind of cooperation as "regime support". Merely renaming the article or dividing it into parts would be absurd. The only possible solution in this case, I believe, is to delete the page, as most editors have reasonably concluded. Alter Z (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't propose to get into a debate about the historical issues involved (least of all here, which is the least appropriate place), but the question of exactly how to categorise the Third Reich's relations with the Soviet Union is definitely the classic example of the term "support" being slippery. Certainly if one were to ask anyone connected to the history of the Baltic states, you'd probably get a strong disagreement with your position. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot but agree with your comment (except for the final sentence, but this is certainly not a place for debates about history). Considering the date when the list was created, it seems likely to me that it was probably a response to another and older one, involving the United States, with a purpose to persuade the reader that other countries, too, support authoritarian regimes, and that the US are not alone in doing so. It looks like a polemical answer. Alter Z (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should not be doing. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, per JzG Grandpallama (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't even begin to count the number of things wrong with the existence of such a list. Runs afoul of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and really, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.--WaltCip (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This makes a category mistake that Soviet Union = Russian Federation, and also gives no explanation as to why and how they support these regimes, just some ambiguous 'look at these cites - the proof is in the pudding!' stuff. Complete violation of our core content policies, and beyond economic repair. ! dave  12:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly tendentious WP:OR, and even WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And, as said above, the author/compiler has a clear agenda and violates WP:NPOV.  Gotta go.  Jip Orlando (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why should this list go when the USA one should not, this list should stay and it is with accurate information, it should be sorted better but otherwise it is pretty good and accurate and if this should be deleted then so should the USA one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b023:5e50:4c25:d0c6:4a50:d367 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2018‎
 * Please avoid using WP:ALLORNOTHING as an argument for or against deletion.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you Gabor vasarus editing while logged out? It's just curious that an IP would comment here with the same argument as that user used above, and with no other edits.  Jip Orlando (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Gabor vasarus (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, but possibly rename and split (per comments by many other participants of this discussion). Nothing is really subjective. There are definitions what is called an authoritarian regime, a democracy, etc. - see Democracy_Index. This can be based, for example, on Democracy Index which is regularly updated for various countries. In addition, one can simply check books which consistently describe certain countries as "authoritarian regimes". We have a page, Authoritarianism with a template "Basic forms of government". This is for a good reason. Of course all definitions in social sciences are blurred. For example, there are multiple Definitions of terrorism. But this is not a valid reason to delete pages. As an additional note (this is not an argument), we have List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Here a previous AfD about USA, just for reference. After looking at the content more carefully, I believe that the best solution would be to rename this page to List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union and remove first Table. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - deleting this article is pretty unecessary, a country being considered authoritarian is not just one random person’s opinion but it is actually measured on the democracy index. There are maps where they show countries allied with the Soviet Union. What agenda does this serve? If the governments get support from Russia or not is not made up by the Wikipedia users. It is the Russian Governments decision to support the governments of these countries or not. Authoritarian Regime is not really subjective as it is measured on the democracy index. Support is not really subjective because the Russian or Soviet government does give Financial and Military aid to these sovereign States. While Russia and the Soviet Union are not the same thing, Russia was the dominant player in the Soviet Union and the other autonomous republics had to obey Moscow. Secondly about governments changing, that is why there is regimes supported in the past. For Example, Hafez al-Assad is dead but Russia still supports Bashar al Assad of Syria so Hafez al Assad goes to Regimes supported in the past. More details can be added on the support for the regimes but deleting the article would prevent such action. - Anymous User 12:27Pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B046:ED22:D0D4:EB32:F929:DBB3 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)   — 2600:1005:B046:ED22:D0D4:EB32:F929:DBB3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is a floating IP. This user made many contributions from other IP addresses. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - To state that "authoritarian" can be defined is true but useless; this article doesn't provide a neutral definition. As it is, this is a polemic and is nothing but anti-Russian.  (Editors can be anti-Russian, but not in the voice of Wikipedia.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Response to one above, this is not anti Russian propaganda and if you want to use that argument there is also a list called list of authoritarian regimes supported by the United states and that one is even longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A2C8:D600:8C33:7D8A:ED73:3375 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)  This is double vote, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete far too many failings in this article including WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV. Ajf773 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Welcome to contribute in Articles for deletion/List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States (2nd nomination). My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is so very OR. The similar US article should be re-nommed as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it has been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete "tendentious original research" is the right of it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Wiki has a list of 14 possible reasons for article deletion at Deletion policy  None of the 14 rules come close to fitting this article. Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the section which reads "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following..." [italics mine]? Moreover, I would point you to the sixth of that non-exhaustive list, as many of the other comments have remarked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DEL6 looks right on to me. Home Lander (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Obvious original research. Home Lander (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - OR *sigh* Atsme 📞📧 01:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, undoubtedly. Obvious and tendentious POV, SYNTH, OR, and unacceptable bias. I'm glad to see someone has finally paid enough attention for that page and tagged it for deletion. Dolchstoß (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: While less sourced than the US article, I similarly don't understand the claims of OR and synthesis. It contains plenty of references, and lists are not inherently SYNTH whenever its components are sourced individually. What exactly is the problem? Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean - I'm going to make the same point that I made for the US article: the concept of these countries supporting particular authoritarian regimes is clearly notable. It comes up in the news on more occasions than I care to count. That being said, the list is in definite need of WP:SYNTH pruning. Each entry should have at least one source that within itself says both that the regime is/was authoritarian, and it is/was supported by the Russian Federation/Soviet Union. Sources sympathetic to either the regime or Russia/CCCP are not likely to suffice for this purpose. And all citations consisting of links to other articles should be replaced with references to the actual citations supporting the claim, if they exist.
 * Besides that though, this article is fixable, and should not be removed simply because of the state it's in, nor should it be deleted on account of potential difficulties in creating a clean and balanced presentation. --Ipatrol (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I'd opt for a WP:NUKEANDPAVE approach. The article is simply too unwieldy and has a lot of dubious sourcing and claims which would take more effort than it's worth to simply fix. Best to start from scratch or change the scope of the article, even if we're totally discounting the WP:NPOV concerns.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that the existing sourcing is not problematic. For example, referencing to RT is OK to document statements by Russian officials. Consider this: "The project ... will provide a good basis to promote Russia’s interests in East Africa as a whole.", said Sergei Chemezov. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Several of the cited sources link to other Wikipedia pages. That is not acceptable.--WaltCip (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed already. This is not a reason for deletion. As a practical matter, a lot of items in WP lists have no in-line references, especially in lists of existing WP pages. The references are typically provided only when someone challenges inclusion of an item to a list or care to check. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (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.