Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinism


 * 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  Keep Clearly a term that is in widespread use. The fact that it may have started off as a neologism doesn't discount the fact that it can also be a definitive concept. I mean, you have Reaganism, McCarthyism, Bushism, Clintonism, Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. Notable and powerful leaders often derive their 'ism'. And it isn't always complementary.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Putinism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:Neologism. The term Putinism has been used as a neologism for the rule of Vladimir Putin, mostly in a derogatory way, but does not justify its own article. Most of the article is hostile criticism about Putin drawn from editorials and US conservative think tanks. TFD (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neologism Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide.... Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history....Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.... TFD (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but... In politics and history you are going to run into a lot of hostile critism, however "Putinism" does seem like a notable expression and it certainly is a real thing, good or bad, since he is a strong leader with definate views and policies. What is not right is to write a history of modern Russia (slanted towards criticism or not) under the title "Putinism."  That title should be reserved for a neutral description of his policies and goals, referenced to good sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable term. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Repeatedly used in NYT      which make a strong case for it being a term in common use.  WSJ  and so on.   And the use is from liberals as well as conservatives.   Guardian    etc.  Unless, of course, one claims the Guardian is a bastion of the right wing.   Sorry - clear Keep here. Should be a "white night" one, in fact.  Collect (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic. 1) "Putinism" as some form of political theory or ideology is nonexistent thing. Putin never coherently described his ideas or goals. (WP:NOTCRYSTAL) 2) "Putinism" as political events and practices of "Putin era" (2000-2010) is real. But for most meaningful sections of this article e.g. "FSB influence", "Rising living standards", "Cronyism and corruption" there are more relevant articles (FSB, Economy of Russia, Corruption in Russia, Politics of Russia) and there is no need to gather all this unrelated things under vaguely defined umbrella term. 3) "Putinism" is inherently non-NPOV term (resembles Stalinism and Nazism). This article has too much WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT issues and is not salvageable. DonaldDuck (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCRYSTAL is irrelevant, nobody is trying to predict the future. And Putin does not need to have described 'Putinism' for it to be a notable topic as defined by coverage in reliable sources. As for 'Putinism' being pejorative: 1. You just triggered Godwin's Law. 2. "Isms" are not all pejorative, e.g. Thatcherism and Blairism. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Descriptions of "Putinism" by various analysts and political commentators are unverifiable, because Putin never coherently described "Putinism" himself. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. DonaldDuck (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article may have OR, SYNTH, and WEIGHT issues, but the term does appear to be notable. If we wish, we could stubify the article, and let someone expand it later in a way more fitting of a Wikipedia article. Buddy431 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Russian sources discuss in detail what Putinism is, so it is neither just a neologism nor a term used due to foreign bias: Whole books have been written about it and it has been discussed in numerous scholarly sources:. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fences, some of your sources define Putinism as a type of socialism, while another source defines it as the "highest stage of robber capitalism". Can you please tell us which one it is, and also why you think that this is the same thing?  Can we write an article about something described both as socialism or capitalism, or is it a neologism?  TFD (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources disagreeing in their interpretations of a topic is hardly a reason to delete an article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is the POV-fork about Putin-related topics. It is impossible to have nPOV in such articles. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - surely an enough notable term. Närking (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2010 (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.