Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankovićism


 * 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. Consensus is to keep - valid term, explained well-beyond WP:NEO ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Rankovićism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

There simply is no such thing as Rankovićism, just look for reliable sources: http://www.google.com/search?q=Rankovi%C4%87ism&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1. Seems like complete OR. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. By removing the accent on the "c", the term "Rankovicism" can be found in multiple English language books on Google Books, see here: . This reference shows that Yugoslavs used the term, .--R-41 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even in those 10 (!) Google books hits you get the word is merely used passing by and in quotation marks, meaning it's not really a term.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have said on your user page, you have been extremely combative here. First you claim it is a neologism and that it should be deleted on that account - then I disproved you by showing that it has been used since the 1960s, then you changed your argument and are still pushing for deletion, it seems that you simply do not want this article to exist. Your accusations of OR are complete nonsense, every sentence in the Rankovicism article uses a source. And what are you talking about that "it's not really a term", you make up some claim that if a quotation mark is used around it it is not a real term - that doesn't make sense because why does the word even exist then? Secondly here is a source that does not have quotation marks around it: . Thirdly, in combination with the material I have shown you, you appear to be denying that such politics existed at all, call it what you will even Politics of Aleksandar Ranković, the politics did exist, it outlasted his death, and there are sources on it. Here is a link to a JSTOR journal article from 1986 that mentions the term "Rankovicite" . And here are 55 results for the term "Rankovicite" on Google Books: --R-41 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to have a bunch of sources and many references. Am I missing something? Appears to be a legitimate term. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Results abound on the search engines and the rivalry between Ranković and Tito was well known in Yugoslav cirlces with the former pushing for a centralised identity to strengthen the state and the latter supporting individual identity as far as practical. The page is well-sourced. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * None of those 'abounding results' cover 'Rankovićism' as a separate ideology. As far as 'Policies of Ranković' are concerned, those are better treated in the very article on him, not as a separate topic.Estlandia (dialogue) 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To what do they refer then? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Although an esoteric phrase, this indeed was a pejorative "-ism" cast about in old Yugoslavia following the fall of Rankovic, who had the interior ministry portfolio, if memory serves. A concept that SHOULD be in a good encyclopedia. Similar to the concept of Rajkism in the Hungarian context. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in such an article that could not be treated in the article on Aleksandar Ranković. Considering the state of reliable sources, his policies do not amount to a specific ideology called Rankovićism. Estlandia (dialogue) 18:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or possibly Merge. First of all: in Serbian and Croatian the term is rankovićevština - not that widely used but definitely exists and is adequately described in the article. What concerns me, though, is the fact that Rankovićism - unlike, say, Titoism - is not really a political philosophy nor a movement, but is rather an umbrella concept to describe political agents with a similar ideological outlook. "Rankovićism" doesn't mean much more than "a quality of being like Ranković", same as "Potemkinesque" doesn't mean more than "having a quality of Potemkin['s villages]", because Potemkin did not lead a movement and didn't actually have followers. That's why Rankovićism might still be adequately covered in the Aleksandar Ranković's biography. GregorB (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with merging into the article on Rankovic himself is that Rankovićism outlasted Rankovic himself who died in 1983. There were people like Cosic who desired the restoration of the pre-1974 constitutional status quo, and there are multiple sources that cite Milosevic as restoring the the agenda of Rankovic. Moreover it does have an implicit meaning in Yugoslav political thought and Yugoslav history as involving the promotion of a centralized Yugoslav state along with an emphasis on maintaining the unity of Serbs within Yugoslavia.--R-41 (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A merge might work if we introduce a subsection titled legacy. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim that this defines "a quality of being like Ranković" and therefore should not be an article could be applied to the term Stalinism though, there was no official ideology of Stalinism during Stalin's rule, it was used occasionally during his rule by supporters but Stalin himself rejected it, later the term was developed in a pejorative manner. Still there is an article on Stalinism. Furthermore the fact that that the Serbian and Croatian term rankovićevština exists, further demonstrates why an article should remain in my view.--R-41 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stalin/Stalinism had many explicit followers (like Tito/Titoism), and also had a major historical impact, to put it mildly. It was also a political philosophy (or a political ideology), i.e. "a set of ideas and principles", a "comprehensive vision" or even a "worldview", that was explicitly or implicitly promulgated by the state apparatus. I find that Rankovićism is lacking in this respect. I agree, though, that - judging based on WP:SIGCOV only - Rankovićism definitely could be said to pass the threshold of standalone notability, so a standalone article might be warranted, especially if it is of substantial size (and it is, actually). That's why I did not - and still do not - specifically opt for Merge. GregorB (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rankovicism is a local Yugoslav phenomenon similar in its local isolation aspect to Deng Xiaoping theory in China - both were designed for their home country's circumstances. Rankovicism existed after Rankovic died - so it is not merely about the man, it is about what he promoted.--R-41 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It is fairly common for Communists to add the suffix "ism" to the names of someone they believe has departed from orthodoxy. There is no evidence that it mean anything beyond that and therefore this article is original research.  TFD (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No it did refer to specific agendas within the SFRY: (1) a centralized state of Yugoslavia in combination with (2) unity of Serbs, effective Serb hegemony through a centralized state, persecution of Kosovo's Albanians and support for Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins. Stalinism is also often used as a pejorative, but there still is an article on Stalinism.--R-41 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No sources have been presented to support that statement. TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is a valid case for a merge to be made. There is a good case for a keep. There is no case whatsoever for deletion, nor is this "original research" in the prohibited sense of OR as the expression of novel terms, concepts, and theories without a corresponding base in published literature. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2012 (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.