Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruscism (2nd 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruscism

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ethnocentric, promotes hate, highly disputable, lacks neutrality, uses questionable sources DanStevens (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. A quick glance at the sources shows pretty clear notability. Any questionable sources can be addressed as part of the normal editorial process. There are plenty of good sources here, and there doesn't otherwise seem to be a valid deletion reason. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Aristophile (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaking a lot rules. You must read the nomination process page instructions.--Aristophile (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which rules am I breaking specifically? I chose to follow the appropriate process for deletion, because I don't believe in vandalizing. DanStevens (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you've attempted to delete someone else's comment.--Aristophile (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below. That was not intentional. I hit vandalism trying to see what that was and then I tried to undo it, but I couldn't figure out how. Pardon my ignorance. DanStevens (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out since that person didn't log in as a registered user and have made less than 500 edits, they would actually not be allowed to comment. In other words, they aren't and extended confirmed user. I didn't know that at the time, however, the deletion was inadvertent and I didn't have time to undo the mistake since I was leaving for work. WP:GS/RUSUKR DanStevens (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The sources in the article show clear notability and this nomination seems to be a clear case ofWP:PPOV and WP:IDL . Kpg jhp jm 04:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the more extreme sense of the word. Though a move to "Russian fascism" might be warranted wholly separate to this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weather forecast suggests snow in July. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above and sources in article and BEFORE [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] // Timothy :: talk 06:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it's not deleted, it will have to be significantly rewritten. Many of the reference do not even mention the subject of the article, and the article lacks a neutral point of view. Waters.Justin (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does have lots of NPOV issues, but there's enough good in it that it deserves to be kept around. HappyWith (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been subject to lots of disruption from people who don't like it, incl. what I personally suspect is organized disruption for political reasons, but it has plenty of notability and good sources.--Euor (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Kpgjhpjm, Timothy, and others. Sourcing is more than adequate to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article “Russians,” for example, is ethnocentric, but this article is not: it’s about national, supremacist, and imperial politics and rhetoric in the Russian state; and that’s not a reason to delete. It is not promoting hate: in fact censoring articles about hateful ideologies would help them be normalized and flourish. The remaining reasons given, even if true, are not causes for deletion. The only other delete vote gives no reason to delete. As in the previous unsuccessful AFD, “keep arguments are non policy based.” Snow close this. —Michael Z. 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you tried to can somebody's reply containing a valid point DanStevens. WP:RELISTINGISEVIL and your "argument" (if you can call it that) goes against WP:AQU & WP:BLOWITUP. Looks like the person trying to get this deleted is not neutral and trying to abuse Wikipedia's AfD to get information taken off the site. WP:CPP. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if you genuinely felt the article had issues, your best bet would be to edit it with your own research, knowledge and findings, rather than immediately reaching for AfD. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do that intentionally. I hit the vandalism link to see what it was, and then I tried to undo it, but I wasn't able to figure out how. Pardon my ignorance. DanStevens (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, my apologies on that. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I wasn't claiming to be neutral. It's a very emotionally charged issue for me, but I was simply asserting that the article itself lacks neutrality. I wouldn't submit an article for the exact same reason. DanStevens (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIXIT Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite: if the article is "highly disputable", and if does "lack neutrality, use questionable sources", if "many of the reference do not even mention the subject of the article, and the article lacks a neutral point of view", it should be fixed. however, the term is popular and widely discussed, and there is criticism of the idea that should be added to the article; if "the theory of ruscism" gets debunked in future by academic circles, the term itself will be an important example of pejoratives widely used in rhetoric and propaganda, still worth an article, much like "red fascism" and "social fascism", "nashism", idk
Keep and do whatever is necessary to make it meet the Wiki standards. In my opinion, as a rule of thumb any article on contentious/controversial topic must be kept, provided the standards are met. The debate and controversy in and of themselves show that the topic is important for public discourse and burying it would be a disservice. LXNDR (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced and describes a documented political phenomenon. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no valid justification for deletion. A subject can be "ethnocentric", cause disputes and be about a "non-neutral" concept. These are not reasons for deletion. No, it does not promotes hate, and no, most sources are RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move. The term was coined by OUN Banderites and is basically a mash of two words "Russian" and "Fascism", which is racism in itself. Hence it should be moved into OUN page as pure OUN invention and placed among with their various crimes.89.0.121.236 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not allow for your least favorite ideology to be wiped from the site and condensed into an unrelated article. Seems like censorship to me and more than anything this guest IP suddenly popping up to comment on this specific topic seems suspicious. WP:CPP? Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - note that there is an entry for Banderite - both terms are used by opponents of their respective ideology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsalya (talk • contribs)

Not exactly. Banderite: “Today, in Russian propaganda, the word is used to refer to all in Ukraine who back the idea of sovereignty from Russia; Ukrainian nationalist collaboration with Nazi Germany is also emphasized.^[1]” Anonymous, above, is trying to equate editors who created this article with the Ukrainian underground of the 1930s and 1940s, to ignore all of the reliable sources cited about the subject, to smear any academic discussion of extremism or fascism in the Russian Federation as racist, and to normalize Kremlin propaganda views and language in this discussion. —Michael Z. 15:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users are not permitted to edit internal project discussions, including AFD’s, broadly related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (which the subject article is, judging by its content and categories). This comment and other examples should be deleted or struck. —Michael Z. 23:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that rule would also apply to the comment that I had inadvertently deleted earlier that I was criticized for deleting. According to the definition of extended confirmed users: "A registered editor becomes extendedconfirmed automatically when the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits" Unless I am missing something.

However, according to the article you cited: "B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required."

However, even though I'm a registered user, I don't think I would qualify since I've only made around 60 edits. I'm still learning so tell me if I'm wrong somewhere. DanStevens (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I read a little bit deeper and you are right as to the original point so ignore my second point since the article does state: "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions." DanStevens (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claim about "OUN Banderites" is part of state-backed Ruscist propaganda of genocide of Ukrainians. 176.113.167.189 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would bring up here, in that while I'm not sure it is the appropriate place is that some of those who are arguing to keep are quick to criticize or otherwise disparage those that wish to delete. I realize it's a minority viewpoint on a highly contentious issue and let's avoid being rude even when using polite language. DanStevens (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Perhaps a warning to the nominator might be warranted. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Super Dromaeosaurus: I assumed good faith that this was a misunderstanding of policy resulting from recent inactivity. Their response is here. Oh well. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I restored your comment, I misunderstood the intent behind it in the heat of the moment, but continuing to point out this error is not helping. DanStevens (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. More than sufficient hits in Google Scholar to demonstrate that this is a notable topic even before considering the Google News and Books hits. The nomination does not detail any specific problems with the article so it is impossible to dig any further into that. There is no reason to believe that any problems with the article can not be dealt with by normal editing, even if the Talk page is a bit of a mess and could do with some more eyes on it. The nomination is clearly inappropriate. The nominator has made no attempt to explain or discuss the alleged problems with the article on the Talk page but has attempted to PROD the article and then to Speedy Delete it, blanking it at the same time. This is straining WP:AGF to the very limit. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure how to prove my actions were in good faith other than the fact that I didn't attempt to vandalize the article. I felt it was worthy of speedy deletion in that I felt it met the criteria for G1 and G10, but I didn't try to redo that, I just simply put it up for proposed deletion on the basis of the reasons that I outlined were obvious to me, but apparently I'm in the minority viewpoint. I intend to abide by the consensus here if for no other reason than my own mental health at this point. I'm not an experienced editor and I'm not all that knowledgeable of all of the legalisms associated with Wikipedia. I've strived to treat everyone here with respect and I just simply ask for the same. DanStevens (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have the time to outline every criticism I have, I will say that from what I've been able to gather it's largely an opinion piece citing other opinion pieces by those with a clear bias. I will admit I have a bias and that is one reason why I don't submit an article on this subject. DanStevens (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I wanted to point that the Speedy deletion attempt occurred first and when that didn't work, I submitted the proposed deletion. I'm not sure if you just read the history wrong or what. I just used the Twinkle app to do both and I followed the instructions for each so Idk. DanStevens (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DanStevens, you responded to my assumption that you misunderstood policy on deletion by declaring it a "personal attack"–that is not how you treat everyone here with respect. When this AfD closes, please review the comments from other editors here and use them to learn how to approach an article deletion process and what articles qualify for the different deletion procedures. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I misunderstood your motivation for that comment, I apologize, but that was on my personal user space. DanStevens (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to bow out of this discussion. If the decision is made to keep the article, I will understand. That seems to be the consensus so far. DanStevens (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2023 (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.

^ Wylegała, Anna; Głowacka-Grajper, Małgorzata (2020-02-11). The Burden of the Past: History, Memory, and Identity in Contemporary Ukraine. Indiana University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-253-04673-4.

[:0-1] Wylegała, Anna; Głowacka-Grajper, Małgorzata (2020-02-11). The Burden of the Past: History, Memory, and Identity in Contemporary Ukraine. Indiana University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-253-04673-4.

[1]