Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. This discussion reflects

WP:SS to keep the main article balanced and at a manageable size.  Sandstein  10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Addendum per request on my talk page: My closure should not be construed as an opinion about the merits of the article in its present state, especially about whether or not is is written from a neutral point of view or whether rebuttals exist in reliable sources and should be added; if any such defects exist, they can be remedied through editing and do not require deletion.  Sandstein  19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Vladimir Putin

Criticism of Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a

Dialogue
12:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC

Apart from your
Dialogue 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, to point out from
Dialogue 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is nothing more than an essay, and has no authority whatsoever, see below. travb (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I could go on, google lists 152[1] wikipedia lists 262 criticism pages, but I think the point has been adequately made. travb (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neuro(talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh that is so fucking cool! Thank you so much neuro, you deserve and will get a barnstar from me. I always wondered if a person could do that. travb (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the long list of
Dialogue 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
And I would also draw your attention to
Dialogue 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So we can both acknowledge that there were no "extreme cases of disruptive editing" leading to this deletion, so the premise of your deletion is without merit.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
is a mere essay, as the template above this essay states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." it has no authority whatsoever, so please quit quoting it as if it is policy, when it is nothing more than a few editors opinions about wikipedia.
You stated above: "Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this." but yet you quote
WP:POVFORK here, stating that criticism articles are acceptable, which is it? travb (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Russavia wrote: "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.
Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_4#Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin_article,
Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_3#Bias
Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_2#Billionaire?
Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_2#Sources_about_wealth this debate about whether the page should be split off, has been going on since 13 December 2007. travb (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are partaking in is
Dialogue 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
"How exactly does a criticism of... article achieve NPOV" I don't know, ask all of the editors of the hundreds of criticism articles above. There is a
WP:POVFORK
which you yourself quote, states that criticism articles are permissible.
It seems when acronym soup arguements fail,
WP:GAME and WP:wikilawyering accusations soon follow. I methodically showed that there is no basis for your arguments, using the same policy which you were using to get this page deleted. How is my arguments any different from yours? I find it odd that you quote acronyms liberally, to establish wikipedia norms which govern 1 million articles, but when I refute those arguments, this debate is suddenly not about wikipedia norms, but about 1 single article only. Editors can't have it both ways. travb (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Then unless you can demonstrate how
Dialogue 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I've never seen a "criticism of" article that includes positive opinion of people, even though you can positively criticise someone (Merriam-Webster says it's usually negative). Ideally, criticism articles should be moved to "Public opinion of" or neutrally-titled articles and have both positive and negative opinions about the article's subject. Just putting the negative opinions in fails NPOV, no matter if it's spun out or not: when spinning out opinions, you must include the positive too. Sceptre (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This concern is something that you can take up at
Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Tony Blair. travb (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
POVFORK does not say that Criticism articles are allowed, it says there is no consensus whether they all are POV forks or not. Completely different areas. Sceptre (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All Criticism of * articles are POV forks that should be deleted since all are deliberate attempts to circumvent NPOV, and frequently use biased sources. Wikipedia's purpose is not to characterize content positively or negatively, it's to present notable information in a neutral voice. If people want to read biased interpretations of people, places, events, theories, etc. then they can read biased media. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion, unfortunately,
WP:POVFORK a wikipedia guideline, acknowledges that criticism articles are allowable. travb (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for you unsubstantiated comment, since
WP:NPOV is a policy so it takes precedent. Since the title "Criticism of ..." is itself a non-neutral point of view, the content is inherently also non-neutral. Also, you should read the POVFORK policy more carefully since it specifically says there's no consensus on criticism articles, but like I said it's mostly irrelevant since policy trumps guideline. In addition, opposing views are supposed to be given equal weight, which can't be accomplished in an article with "criticism" in the title. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So you think every article with "Criticism of" is a POV? From my experience, any one who used this excuse was trying to repress any sort of information that puts their issue or idol in a negative light. Isn't calling criticisms POV a POV in itself? Also please cite the source on wikipedia where policy trumps guidelines.--Waxsin (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please mark all "criticism" articles for deletion and debate them all together. There is no logic to selectively delete only this article.Biophys (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From
Dialogue 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
My thoughts exactly, but some people can't help but bring up
that other stuff exists. Before doing bundles, it suggested to try out one article first and then try a bundled delete. I'd suggest breaking it down further by topic, group criticism articles for religion, political figures, other LPs, theories, etc. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Why is this being brought up? What relevance does this have to the discussion? What other articles do you plan on deleting besides this article?--Waxsin (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putin's article is already too long. Why aren't you giving the same weight to merging such articles as
Vladimir Putin legislation and program, Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, or Vladimir Putin's Second Cabinet into the main article?--Waxsin (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
There are no edit diffs in this ANI, please provide them. travb (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My posting was limited, neutral, nonpartisan and open. Hence this is not
canvassing.Biophys (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most "criticism of..." articles are POV forks and I see no reason why this one is different. Per
    WP:NPOV, a core policy, criticism should be discussed in the main articles in a balanced and encyclopedic fashion. "Criticism of..." is too often an excuse to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. *** Crotalus *** 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Everything" being anything that may be damaging to a person's credibility or positive public image, correct? Without criticism, where do you draw the line between knowledge and propaganda?--Waxsin (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the Personal wealth section is Criticism. It's mish mash of things the article creator threw together, i.e.
Dialogue 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Please discuss the suitability of individual sections to that article on the article's talk page, not here. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the info is already there? Oh yes, especially after such edits. Biophys (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue nor explain edits on VVP here (that's what the article talk page is for), but I will this once. The diff that you have shown there in 95% unsourced (remember
Dialogue 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, the edit diff Biophys provides pretty much confirms your own POV. I got a really good idea, if you disagree with someone's POV, instead of "gutting" their contributions, why not find verifiable sources which support your own POV? travb (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more criticisms of Putin deleted by Russavia:
[2] deleting
Saint Petersburg Times
and the official Kremlin website, president.kremlin.ru
[3] deleting
inosmi.ru, International Herald Tribune
[4] deleting Associated Press
[5] Deleting UK
Radio Free Europe, The Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the New Statesman, RIA Novosti
.
[6] deleting UK
Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, the book First Person, the book Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and the End of Revolution
[7]
LA Times, BBC News
travb (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to support my POV, I am here to include what
Dialogue 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If I read the policy correctly, a split of praise/unpraise would violate
WP:POVFORK. You're supposed to add any due notable positive criticism -- shall we say, critical acclaim -- into the criticism article. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I have to agree. Putin is a public political figure, hence an article detailing published criticisms of his political agenda is entirely justified.
talk) 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge with main article (Vladimir Putin), along with anything that would go in an article praising him. If you were in an encyclopedia would you expect there to be such articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs)
    • If it were possible to publish Wikipedia in book form (indeed if there were any reason to) I would expect such articles to be adjacent or without a discernible beginning or end, possibly filling an entire volume in the case of a major political figure such Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush. However we can't be passing multiple megabytes back and forth with every page-load and every edit; it needs to be broken down somehow. Unless you see some advantage to Putin (chapter 12), etc. it would be better to use titles which describe the content. — CharlotteWebb 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am against merger as that would make the parent article too long.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please review
    Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise
    I have copied it below and bolded the relevant sections:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to

guilt by association
. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

  • This is what I believe is the major failure of this article and it can't be fixed so it should be deleted. Any relevant information can be added to Vladimir Putin as long as it doesn't overwhelm that article either and must remain neutral. Note that Putin is very popular in Russia and this needs to be reflected in Wikipedia otherwise undue weight is being given to the minority view. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is exactly that it would overwhelm that article and thus give, probably, an even more negative impression. It's critical to keep the main article balanced, even when that is difficult because of the nature of the material. DGG (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the article seems lopsided, that would be a reason for expansion (assuming there is material to expand it with), not deletion and certainly not salting. Hence
    WP:POVFORK: "There is currently no consensus whether a 'Criticism of .... ' article is always a POV fork. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article should include both positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the spunout article." Pointing to BLP does not establish consensus against this type of article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
there are those who would delete that also, for the same incorrect reasons. DGG (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As people are now saying that Criticism of... articles should have both positive and negative points mentioned, isn't this still just a POVFORK? Think about it, take,
Dialogue 00:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Section break
WP:AGF is still observed at Wikipedia. Violations of such are much frowned-upon here. B.Wind (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin&oldid=1137744814"