Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decommunization in Russia

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 no consensus. Default to keep. Smashville^talk 16:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decommunization in Russia

The term "decommunization" is a neologism in the English language. While the term generates some hits on search engines, its usage in English language literature is obscure. Specialists on the post-Soviet era in Russia writing in English language publications tend to use the terms "post-communism" or "transition" in describing the period. Encyclopedias are supposed to direct content to entries on more widely used terminology. If some of the content is salvageable, it should be moved to entries on post-communism, transition, or post-Soviet history. 172 | Talk 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is also by its nature not WP:Neutral point of view. The article, which is really more like an essay anyway, takes the point of view that decommunization is something that ought to be happening and in fact should be happening faster. While I agree, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to make judgements on history or politics but to report the facts. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks a lot like a POV fork? Artw (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. To give the creators of the article the benefit of the doubt, maybe they did not realize that the topic is already discussed in articles under more established terms (e.g., post-communism and history of post-Soviet Russia). 23:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep Google books shows 466 hits for "decommunization" by itself [1] and 244 with Russia [2] which makes it notable and not really a neologism (decommunization without "transition" also yields lots of hits suggesting this is a distinct concept). And of course the term is no more POV than Denazification or Destalinization. If its POV-forkish then adjust the content, not delete.radek (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A neologism is not necessarily a term that has never been used. The term's usage is just not well established. For instance, the same search engine shows 8,448 entries for either "post-communism" and "postcommunism." In academic publications, the researcher has license to invent or introduce new terminology, or favor terms not in wide use. (I certainly use my own favored pet terms in stuff I publish.) In encyclopedias the guidelines are more restrictive. Naming guidelines in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) favor the term more widely used in the language of publication. Hence, any content with merit in the article can be redirected to entries related to post-Soviet history and postcommunism. 172 | Talk 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

466 book, mostly academic, hits suggest that this is NOT a term that is "just not well established". That's a lot of academics just "inventing" supposedly new terminology. Of course "post-communism" gets more hits - it's a broader concept. Not a reason to delete.radek (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

466 is not really that much by the standards of a Google serch ... Just about all those books aren't too widely read in U.S. political science cources, or widely cited in U.S. political science research. 172 | Talk 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, 466 is actually quite a lot for Google books - certainly more than sufficient to establish notability. And how exactly do you know that these books "aren't too widely read in US political science course" and why does this even matter? Reliable sources are not restricted to just stuff that's read in "US political science courses".radek (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I teach in the U.S. and English is my first language. The term is not widely used in the U.S. or other English speaking countries. 172 | Talk 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I teach in the US and English is my first language (no, really). I've heard the term quite a few times here and in other English speaking countries (where I've also taught). Since when have personal anecdotes become more important than reliable sources?radek (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps merge into an article like history of post-Soviet Russia. As Steve points out, it has a clear ideological POV by nature rather than a WP:Neutral point of view. radek is right that sources use the term, but, from what I see, it's to invoke the political content or stakes of the term, some even tongue-in-cheek, few seem to be about the actual history of post-Soviet Russia.--Junius49 (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is the article title "clear ideological POV"? Should Denazification also be put up for AfD? Obviously history of Russia since the fall of Communism is a very broad subject. This is one particular aspect of it, which is significant and notable enough by itself - judging by number of hits - to merit an article of its own. This is like arguing that we should delete the article Grunge just because there already is a 1990s in music article. I don't think that's usually a sufficient criteria for deletion.radek (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, denazification should not be deleated. The term itself was promulgated in the 1940s by the Allies to describe their agenda for postwar Germany. The Allies (not obscure academics writing in the past couple of decades) used that specific term. 172 | Talk 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's two questions here, notability and POV. I addressed the notability above. This was a question about why it's POV, not why it was notable. And why are these sources "obscure"? Greenwood publishing is a respectable publishing firm. As is Rowman & Littlefield. As is University of Missouri Press. As are pretty much all of them. You calling them "obscure" does not make them so. Again, the question is whether or not these are reliable sources, not whether or not you happen to like them. And how exactly was anyone suppose to write about decommunization before the fall of communism (i.e. in the past couple of decades)? To continue with, the Grunge analogy, are we not supposed to have that article because all the sources on it have been written "in the past couple of decades"??radek (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are hundreds books mentioning this subject [3]. Biophys (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as no valid reason for deletion has been provided. If somebody thinks the title is wrong, there are other venues for renaming the article (to "post-Communist transition in Russia" or whatever, I don't care). Note that Wikipedia naming conventions allow for descriptive titles. Colchicum (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands now this article is available at 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, and provides no details on any so-called decommunisation in Russia. I have removed information from the article on the registration of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, as it is a novel synthesis to link this registration to this process; after all, I thought the registration of political parties was to be encouraged in a democracy, and has nothing to do with what is stated in the lead. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Russavia and Steve Dufour. POV fork. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of books that discuss this (note the difference in spelling): Decommunization in Russia, Decommunisation in Russia, so the nominator's contention that it is an "obscure neologism" doesn't hold up. Issues of POV (if any) should be discussed on the article talk page. --Martintg (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by several participants. It's not a perfect article, but it can be improved through editing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. PoV fork (WP:FORK of information already at USSR, 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, History of post-Soviet Russia; any additional information can be inserted into those articles, Government of Russia, Politics of Russia and/or Communism. 2. Minor Neologism (WP:NEO, in that scholars are divided on what it means and what terms to use for it, or even if it exists, which leads to the third point. 3. Insufficient content to support an article: The final two sentences of the article itself, easily inserted into History of post-Soviet Russia: "On November 30, 1992, the Constitutional Court partially reviewed the decrees and lifted the ban against the Communist Party of the Russian SFSR[9] There has been no deliberate attempt to deal with the Soviet past for Russia as a society.[10]" The article itself declares that there is nothing much to talk about, and certainly not enough for a whole article. So what is in the article now? That's the fourth point. 4. Current article content is unconnected with the title. Potted history of the coup, aftermath of the coup, ending with the best evidence that decommunization, like the USSR, is a relic of the cold war. Decommunization is better described as the ten-year Russian ban on the Communist Party, and the place to do it is in the articles listed above. Anarchangel (talk) 20:37, 13 July 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.