Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin (3rd nomination)


 * 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   speedily kept, >>>>>>> DRV is this way >>>>>>>. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - This discussion was taken to DRV and Articles_for_deletion/Phone_Call_to_Putin_(2nd_nomination) was relisted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Phone Call to Putin
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The previous AfD was closed inappropriately, especially Inclusionist's comments about the nominator (whom I believe IS Russian). Phone Call to Putin is a non-notable neologism used to describe electric shocks. The previous AfD has misunderstood what the topic is about. WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The sources used in this article do not give significant coverage of Phone Call to Putin, but rather to Alexey Mikheyev, and mention Phone Call to Putin in passing. The term does not meet the basic notability guidelines, and would be best placed in an article on Alexey Mikheyev, and done so in passing as per the sources which discuss this notable individual. Russavia Dialogue 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. It was decided to "keep" just a couple of days ago. If you think the procedure was wrong, you should ask for review.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Biophys, if you don't agree with procedures try a procedure to change the procedure and don't try to by-pas the procedures. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, per Biophys. The nominator should be advised to take it to WP:DRV. Martintg (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I'm assuming good faith that the Nom wasn't aware of Deletion review, but that's where this should go.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The full listing period for the 2nd AFD isn't up yet so think of it as simply undoing the improper non-admin closure of the 2nd AFD.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable slang term.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep lets try not to waste this discussion boards time any longer. JBsupreme (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest, then, that you retract your accusation of bad faith (which is what "speedy keep" means) made against the nominator, and actually have a proper discussion. The prior discussion was closed after only 1 day.  AFD discussions are supposed to run for five.  Trying to shut down a perfectly good faith nomination as you are, after rapidly shutting down a prior discussion, will only make it seem like all of you are unwilling to discuss, or even answer, the points that were raised in good faith in both discussions, by both nominators. Uncle G (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed that, I assumed in good faith that all procedures where followed there (it seems first AFD was also clossed after 1 day also...)... anyhow that means he/we should start to complain about administrators who simply ignore the AFD procedures... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now we could go to Deletion Review, notice that the prior AFD was a non-administrator closure, get that overturned (which any administrator can actually do on xyr own recognizance, as explained at Non-admin closure) because, as is plain from the first AFD, there is no consensus and so an early closure is inappropriate, and start a fourth AFD discussion. Let's just assume that we've all done that little dance. Assume, if you like, that I, with my administrator hat on, have undone the prior AFD closure and re-opened the discussion, most of whose participants are here anyway. Let's now have a proper AFD discussion, to run for the full period, and to address the article and the subject, not the nominator or other participants in the discussion. Please continue with it below. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but I think it would be better to rename the article to Police torture in modern Russia or something, cause that part of the article is fully referenced and more interesting (I think). Then can Phone Call to Putin be made a sub chapter of that lager scoped article. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above comments. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Human rights in Russia. Per WP:NEO the title is a non-notable neologism and hence the content should be merged. On a procedural note, it was inappropriate for User:Neurolysis to do a non-admin closure after one day so this AFD is perfectly reasonable and necessary. The closing admin can take into account the comments made by users in the previous AFD if they haven't already copied those comments here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Should be dealt with at Deletion review.   Ikip (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. Drv is here. Themfromspace (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2009 (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.