Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinversteher


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Putinversteher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:DICDEF; could be transwikied to Wiktionary if deemed suitable for inclusion there. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * keep Obviously not a dicdef. the article is not about the word, but about a concept (category of people). Notable usage in Germany, noticed even in English osurces. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Staszek Lem. This isn't a dictionary article, it's an article on a piece of German politics. /Julle (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: not a dictionary definitions per refs already present in the article. Suitable topic for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible Delete it's a neologism and it's not even an English neologism. How is this article supposed to go beyond defining the term which it already does? Do they have a shared history or something- don't think so. I don't see how this can get much bigger, seems to have maxed out already. Bad article is bad. Kill with fire. GliderMaven (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Paul Roderick Gregory seems to disagree with you: it is not just a term. And the article can be made bigger ([as I just have done) if you care to google a bit, which you didnt bother as I suspect. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A bigger dicdef is still a dicdef. Nothing particularly popped up when I googled it, and it seems to me that all you're really doing is creating an article on a word that roughly translates as 'Putin's bitch', and much as I greatly dislike Putin I can't see this as an article that fits Wikipedia's mission. I agree with the nom, hard no from me. GliderMaven (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about category of people which called "Putinversteher" not about the term "Putinversteher". Therefore it is not a dicdef. I strongly suggest you to think carefully about the philosophical difference between the "concept" and the "term which refers to the concept". In the article, only first paragraph is about the word. The rest is about the people described with this word. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an article either. Have you considered creating a list article instead? But I think that would get deleted also. It's also getting into WP:BLP issues. It seems to me you're just digging yourself and the article into a bigger and bigger hole. Very hard no. GliderMaven (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * List article??? BLP???? I've lost you completely. It appears you are evading discussion, so I am done with this thread.  Staszek Lem (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's not even English"?? "Invented by smelly forriners" is not usually considered a strong argument on Wikipedia. Damvile (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Staszek Lem. James500 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notwithstanding mention of the terms Putinversteher and Russlandversteher in the first paragraph, it is pretty clear that this article is about the people labeled and the attitudes attributed to them, not about the words as words. Cnilep (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Staszek Lem. Significant discussion in RS easy to find. There is literally an entire book on the subject. Damvile (talk) 10:17, 1 October 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.