Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:41, 29 December 2008 editRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Criticism of Vladimir Putin: rsp← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:19, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(110 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. This discussion reflects ], which states that "there is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork." That opinion, also voiced here, is distinctly in the minority, while the majority of contributors maintain that a "criticism of..." article, if written from a neutral point of view, may on occasion be required per ] to keep the main article balanced and at a manageable size. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

<small>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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)</small>

===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}


:{{la|Criticism of Vladimir Putin}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Criticism of Vladimir Putin}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
This is a ] of ] in which information which is already present in the main article is cherry picked and placed in this article. As it is ''criticism'' it is never going to be possible to achieve ]. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) This is a ] of ] in which information which is already present in the main article is cherry picked and placed in this article. As it is ''criticism'' it is never going to be possible to achieve ]. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC

*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</small> *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</small>
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</small> *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)</small>


*'''Keep'''. No, we do not have most of this information in his BLP article. His BLP article is already too big and therefore should be divided to smaller pages (see ]). We currently have 10+ "criticism" of living person articles.] (]) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. No, we do not have most of this information in his BLP article. His BLP article is already too big and therefore should be divided to smaller pages (see ]). Please see ]. Are we going to delete all these hundreds articles? ] (]) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:Apart from your ] argument, the section ''Civil liberties and internal dissent'' is present at ]. ''Allegations of political assassinations and muzzling of reporters'' is present at ]. ''Relations with "oligarchs"'' is present at ]. ''Environmental concerns'' is present at ]. ''Bubble'' is not criticism (and hence I will remove it). ''Relations with former Soviet Republics'' is present at ]. ''Personal wealth'' is present at ]. And they are available word-for-word. Check it for yourself, ; . I have already started a clean-up of the VVP article, and will likely work on it more in the coming days, and it will be much reduced in size. That still does not address the fact that ] is a ], with identical content to the main article, which has been cherry picked by some editor, and which is not ], nor will it be POV...that is a major policy here on WP. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) :Apart from your ] argument, the section ''Civil liberties and internal dissent'' is present at ]. ''Allegations of political assassinations and muzzling of reporters'' is present at ]. ''Relations with "oligarchs"'' is present at ]. ''Environmental concerns'' is present at ]. ''Bubble'' is not criticism (and hence I will remove it). ''Relations with former Soviet Republics'' is present at ]. ''Personal wealth'' is present at ]. And they are available word-for-word. Check it for yourself, ; . I have already started a clean-up of the VVP article, and will likely work on it more in the coming days, and it will be much reduced in size. That still does not address the fact that ] is a ], with identical content to the main article, which has been cherry picked by some editor, and which is not ], nor will it be POV...that is a major policy here on WP. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:Also, to point out from ], ] states "I just copy-pasted the contents of the original article in creating this one, so that there'd be a place for fuller exploration of the contra- viewpoint."....as I said, it's been cherry-picked from the original article in order to create a ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) :Also, to point out from ], ] states "I just copy-pasted the contents of the original article in creating this one, so that there'd be a place for fuller exploration of the contra- viewpoint."....as I said, it's been cherry-picked from the original article in order to create a ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::] is nothing more than an essay, and has no authority whatsoever, see below. ] (]) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or merge. As per ]: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit<br>Further, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] I could go on, wikipedia list 152 pages, but I think the point has been adequately made. ] (]) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or merge. As per ]: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit<br>Further, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks, such as ], ] around 100 more:
:::{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!align=left|criticism articles
|-
|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|}
::I could go on, <s>google lists 152</s> ], but I think the point has been adequately made. ] (]) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::]... <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><b>&mdash; ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></span> 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::'''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. ] (]) 01:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you for the long list of ]. And have you taken a look at them? How many of them have their ]? (and rightly so). How many contain vast amounts of ]. Or are absolute merge candidates? How many are full of any titbit taken from some newspaper on some non-notable topic? Should I go on? Because the ] argument is not valid. Every article has to be judged on its own merits, and that is why I have nominated this, instead of simply re-directing, for the reasons provided to Biophys above. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC) :Thank you for the long list of ]. And have you taken a look at them? How many of them have their ]? (and rightly so). How many contain vast amounts of ]. Or are absolute merge candidates? How many are full of any titbit taken from some newspaper on some non-notable topic? Should I go on? Because the ] argument is not valid. Every article has to be judged on its own merits, and that is why I have nominated this, instead of simply re-directing, for the reasons provided to Biophys above. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:And I would also draw your attention to ] where it also states: ''"Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.'' - I can see no agreement amongst any editors to create this POVFORK. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::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.
::] 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 ] here, stating that criticism articles are acceptable, which is it? ] (]) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::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.''
::],
::]
::]
::] this debate about whether the page should be split off, has been going on since 13 December 2007. ] (]) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::What you are partaking in is ], in particular, ''Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy.'' -- although yes, this is an essay, yet, an oft referred to essay, and yes, the essay does say that calling forks POV is POV, '''but''' this has been brought here to AfD in order to weigh up community consensus on '''this''' article, and this article only. I have stated my reasons for AfD above, and others will surely weigh in with their opinions in order to gather consensus. But one thing you haven't touched on is the '''policy''' which is relevant; that being ]. How exactly does a '''criticism of...''' article achieve NPOV, when the content of the article is set-up by its very title? It would be no different to me starting ], it would be an inherrently POV article. And thanks also for providing that list, I will start merging many of them back into their parent articles in the coming days. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::::"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 ], ], why is ] any different? ] which you yourself quote, states that criticism articles are permissible.
::::It seems when acronym soup arguements fail, ] and ] 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. ] (]) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Then unless you can demonstrate how ] can be gotten on this article then you can go on and on to yourself. Each article has to rise or fall on its own merits, and the existence or non-existence of other articles can not be used in reaching consensus on this '''one''' article. That's my last word on that. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::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. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This concern is something that you can take up at ], or write an essay then propose it be a guideline. But right now, the predominant guideline that the nominator used for deletion ], allows for criticism articles on wikipedia, such as ] and ]. ] (]) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::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. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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. Misplaced Pages'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. --<span style="font-family:Arial Black;">] (]|])</span> 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion, unfortunately, ] a wikipedia guideline, acknowledges that criticism articles are allowable. ] (]) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for you unsubstantiated comment, since ] is a ''guideline'' and ] 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. --<span style="font-family:Arial Black;">] (]|])</span> 02:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::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.--] (]) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Rename to ]''' and include the section on support and popularity to balance the article. It helps dampen the size of the main article and leaves the spinoff as neutral as it can be. - ]|] 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
**That might confuse readers. ], for example, is about his views, not how he is viewed by others. Perhaps that article needs to be renamed due to the ambiguity. ] might be a better example. — ] 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per Amwestover ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::Then please mark ''all'' "criticism" articles for deletion and debate them all together. There is no logic to selectively delete only this article.] (]) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::From ], ''Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group.'' There is some logic in discussing only one article first. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::::My thoughts exactly, but some people can't help but bring up ]. 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. --<span style="font-family:Arial Black;">] (]|])</span> 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::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?--] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
* '''Merge''' into ] which is the same topic. ] (]) 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:Putin's article is already too long. Why aren't you giving the same weight to merging such articles as ], ], or ] into the main article?--] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''NOTICE''' - I have opened , related to possible ] and misrepresentation of the ongoing debate. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::There are no edit diffs in this ANI, please provide them. ] (]) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::My posting was limited, neutral, nonpartisan and open. Hence this is not ].] (]) 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' ] (]) 22:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - most "criticism of..." articles are POV forks and I see no reason why this one is different. Per ], 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. ] 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:"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?--] (]) 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Very strong keep''' per travb and per ] itself, which does not prohibit criticism articles, but rather says, "At least the 'Criticism of ... ' article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the 'Criticism of ... ' article." ] is a reasonably-sized section of a long article, so a divergent article is appropriate. And, most importantly from my perspective, ''any'' attempt to stifle (sourced) criticism, on the basis that it is indeed criticism, is a form of censorship, and Misplaced Pages is ]. ] (]) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The nomination appears to be predicated on the idea that criticism is inherently non-neutral and representing criticism on Misplaced Pages violates the ] policy. That is untrue. As for the article itself, it's clearly a notable topic; there is no need to delete it. Moreover, since the nomination is erroneous, there is not even a potentially valid basis for deletion offered -- so a speedy keep would not be out of order. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:Please explain how the ''Personal wealth'' section is ''Criticism''. It's mish mash of things the article creator threw together, i.e. ]. Representing criticism is not NPOV, however, when done in an article entitled ''Criticism of...'' just how does it reach NPOV? Additionally, the main article is not that long, and ALL of the info present in this AfD article is already present in the main article. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Please discuss the suitability of individual sections to that article on the article's talk page, not here. ]<sub>]</sub> 01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::All of the info is already there? Oh yes, ''especially after ''. ] (]) 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::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 ]), and the rest is information on who owns a TV station or two. It is not criticism ''per se''. However, I am mindful that there is criticism of media freedoms in Russia being (perceived to be) curtailed, and '''ideally''' no article would have a "support" and "criticism" section, it would all be rewritten into coherent prose which explains all sides of the equation together, instead of being split into separate sections. That is in essence ]. And yes, as this article has always been a priority for me, but never gotten around to, it will be gutted, rewritten and improved, and such things will be included. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, the 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? ] (]) 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Here are more criticisms of Putin deleted by Russavia:
::::: deleting ], ] and the official Kremlin website, president.kremlin.ru
::::: deleting ], ], ], ]
::::: deleting ]
::::: Deleting UK ], the ], ], ], the ], the ], ].
::::: deleting UK ], ], the book ], the book ]
::::: ], ], ]
:::::] (]) 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm not here to support my POV, I am here to include what ] say, in order for the article to be ] and presented ]. It is the ] of editors who wish to include information to include those sources, otherwise information can be removed. There isn't a single inclusion of information into any article by myself which is not properly referenced as required by those policies, and I expect the same from others. Is too much to ask? Read up on these policies and one can see in black and white what is there. As it stood, the only info which was sourced was "Now there is only one national independent channel, Ren-TV. There are also radio stations such as Echo of Moscow and a large selection of independent newspapers such as Novaya Gazeta, Moscow Times and Nezavisimaya Gazeta. InoSMI project delivers selected Russian translations of articles dedicated to Russia from foreign and Western media online on a daily basis and has a daily audience of 70,000–90,000 visitors, most of them Russians." - the first is to a broken link, the rest has nothing to do with criticism. But you'll be glad to know I am already working up on information on the media, all fully referenced, and all presented in an NPOV way. As to your other examples, Clinton's view on whether she thinks Putin has a soul or not has '''nothing''' to do with '''Foreign policy of Putin'''. And Medvedev changing the constitution also has '''nothing''' to do Putin...or is now that we criticise Person A for the actions of Person B? The criticism of Nashi is criticism of Nashi, not of Putin. But it is funny, even within the '''Support''' section of the article we have '''Criticism'''. And need I mention the other '''Criticism''' article which is at ], and the one which was deleted at ]. Just how many '''Criticism of Vladimir Putin''' articles do we need? Anyway, back to the Afd, if you want to moan about anything else I have or haven't done, please use my talk page. I've had my say at this AfD, that's all from me, and will let others have their say also on what we are here for, the discussion of a single article. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' per ]. "Criticisms" articles are a valid way of presenting alternative notable viewpoints published in reliable, verifiable sources. ] (]) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as ].] (]) 04:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - ] allows criticism articles and in fact they're quite commonplace around here. Putin is a well-known public figure and there's no reason he can't have a criticism article. ] (]) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''--I understand nomination concern with ], but this should be addressed in the discussion page of the article and thru editing. --] (]) 07:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Serious question here. Given that many people believe ] is entirely appropriate, are those same people who want to keep this article, going to hold the same opinion '''when''' I start ]/]? It won't be a ] article in the slightest, because one need only read ] to learn that he once held approval ratings of 81%, the highest amongst any world leader, and hasn't fallen below 65% since November 1999. With 9 years of sky high approval ratings, there is going to be a lot of information in media, books, scholarly journals (scholarly journals is something which isn't present in any of the Putin series of articles, what does that indicate?), etc with which to build a well-written, entirely referenced ''Praise'' article. People are getting caught up on ], whereas ] is the relevant policy in play here. But let us for a moment concentrate on ] only. Editors have stated that there is nothing in ] which forbids such a criticism article, well I challenge that there is nothing in ] that forbids a ''praise'' article. If "''"Criticisms" articles are a valid way of presenting alternative notable viewpoints published in reliable, verifiable sources.''", why could this not also apply to ''Praise'' articles, particularly with this particular person, because it could be argued that the ''alternative'' view is the ''praise''. ] doesn't forbid it. One could also argue, ''any attempt to stifle (sourced) praise, on the basis that it is indeed praise, is a form of censorship, and Misplaced Pages is ].''. I don't expect anyone to answer this question, but have raised it to hopefully make people think. But, if you look at ], and in particular ], doesn't an article entitled '''Criticism of PersonA''' smack of POV right at the get go? Think about it, how does one achieve NPOV when the stage is set from its very title? What exactly is the point of ] when we have 150+ articles which have, and are allowed to have, such POV titles? --] <sup>]</sup> 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::If I read the policy correctly, a split of praise/unpraise ''would'' violate ]. You're supposed to add any due notable positive criticism -- shall we say, critical acclaim -- into the criticism article. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' appropriate article--a normal Misplaced Pages way of handling such topics for major political figures, and other controversial topics, in order to keep the main article relatively straightforward. It's one of the proper uses for forking, not a POV fork. ''']''' (]) 08:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::I have to agree. Putin is a public political figure, hence an article detailing published criticisms of his political agenda is entirely justified. ] (]) 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', but make sure its reliable and respects WP:BLP.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 13:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and consider salt. Per ] and ]. This article is a ]. What likely happened is that the people who don't like Putin weren't able to put all the criticism they wanted in the article about Putin so they created a separate article. If this article were to remain there should also be an article called ]. The fact that there ] called "Criticism of X" is irrelevant. ] (]) 07:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': Remarks such as, "If this article were to remain there should also be an article called ]" imply a narrow understanding of the word "criticism." Criticism in intelligent discussion (see, for example, ]) does not usually mean simply "to censure or find fault with," as in, "waaaaah, don't criticize me," but rather , as in, "the movie critic gave the film 3 1/2 stars." Criticism involves both merits ''and'' faults; it therefore ''does'' have at least an ''a priori'' neutrality to it. What it lacks is ''apathy''. And ] is of limited relevance when information is properly sourced. Public figures and criticism are inherently intertwined; to point this out is not libelous, but to hide it is censorship. ] (]) 19:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
***'''Reply''': We shouldn't get into a debate of the semantics of the article title. You can make the same argument for the word ''appreciation'' such that appreciation doesn't necessarily mean "Zomg Putin is the bestest President evar!" but appreciation could also be defined as a just valuation of a persons merit and this could be positive or negative as well. The point remains that the article is unbalanced and non-neutral and uses what you call the narrow definition of the word criticism. Also, BLP policy is clear on this issue and should not be dismissed as limited relevance. Please refer to ]. ] (]) 07:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
**Appreciation? The stub-sorters will chuckle each time they see that title. — ] 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''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? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
**If it were possible to publish Misplaced Pages 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 ], etc. it would be better to use titles which describe the content. — ] 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' I am against merger as that would make the parent article too long.--]<sup>(])</sup> 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. Please review ] I have copied it below and bolded the relevant sections:
{{Quotation|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 ]'''. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. '''Care must be taken with ] 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 ] and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on ]. 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages otherwise undue weight is being given to the minority view'''. ] (]) 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::::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. ''']''' (]) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

:*'''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 ]: "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. ] (]) 09:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The article was created not so long ago due to the fact that the parent one had become too long. Such articles exist elsewhere, ] being one of the most prominent and popular.] (]) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:::there are those who would delete that also, for the same incorrect reasons. ''']''' (]) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

:'''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, ]. This does not belong in a criticism article but in ], which has its own article ]. ] should be in a section of ] called '''Domestic policy''', and perhaps have its own article ]. (something that I am currently working on ideas for). '''ALL''' of these issues should be covered in their separate sections which do or don't currently exist, not in a POVFORK; by ensuring that the information is included in the relevant sections of the main article (which I will attest to, all information in this article is present in ]), this is the only way that coherence can be achieved and further ]. This goes not only for this article, but it is my opinion on '''ALL''' criticism of articles. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
=====Section break=====
*'''Keep''' Another attempt at whitewashing I see, not surprised.--] (]) 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:] is still observed at Misplaced Pages. Violations of such are much frowned-upon here. ] (]) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 06:19, 6 February 2023

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:POVFORK, which states that "there is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork." That opinion, also voiced here, is distinctly in the minority, while the majority of contributors maintain that a "criticism of..." article, if written from a neutral point of view, may on occasion be required per WP:SS to keep the main article balanced and at a manageable size.  Sandstein  10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Criticism of Vladimir Putin

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Vladimir Putin in which information which is already present in the main article is cherry picked and placed in this article. As it is criticism it is never going to be possible to achieve WP:NPOV. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this. Russavia 12:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC

Apart from your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, the section Civil liberties and internal dissent is present at Vladimir_Putin#Criticism. Allegations of political assassinations and muzzling of reporters is present at Vladimir_Putin#Second_term_.282004_.E2.80.93_2008.29. Relations with "oligarchs" is present at Vladimir_Putin#Second_term_.282004_.E2.80.93_2008.29. Environmental concerns is present at Vladimir_Putin#Environmental_record. Bubble is not criticism (and hence I will remove it). Relations with former Soviet Republics is present at Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy. Personal wealth is present at Vladimir_Putin#Personal_wealth. And they are available word-for-word. Check it for yourself, Criticism of VVP article as of now; VVP article as of now. I have already started a clean-up of the VVP article, and will likely work on it more in the coming days, and it will be much reduced in size. That still does not address the fact that Criticism of Vladimir Putin is a WP:POVFORK, with identical content to the main article, which has been cherry picked by some editor, and which is not WP:NPOV, nor will it be POV...that is a major policy here on WP. --Russavia 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, to point out from Talk:Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin, User:Ender78 states "I just copy-pasted the contents of the original article in creating this one, so that there'd be a place for fuller exploration of the contra- viewpoint."....as I said, it's been cherry-picked from the original article in order to create a WP:POVFORK. --Russavia 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is nothing more than an essay, and has no authority whatsoever, see below. travb (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. As per WP:POVFORK: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit
    Further, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks, such as Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Tony Blair around 100 more:
criticism articles
Criticism of Google, Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Windows Vista, Criticism of Islamism, Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of the Qur'an, Criticism of Wal-Mart, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Criticism of Family Guy, Criticism of debt, Criticism of Greenpeace, Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of intellectual property, Criticism of Microsoft Windows, Criticism of Java, Criticism of Esperanto, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, Criticism of social nudity, Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Criticism of Holocaust denial, Criticism of monotheism, Criticism of Windows XP, Criticism of Coca-Cola, Criticism of George W. Bush, Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Criticism of the Iraq War, Criticism of college and university rankings (North America), Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Criticism of the War on Terrorism, Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance, Criticism of Ultima Online, Criticism of libertarianism, Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration, Criticism of Blueprint Negev, Criticism of Torchwood, Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan, Criticism of Ellen White, Criticism of fractional-reserve banking, Criticism of MTV, Criticism of YouTube, Criticism of the World Trade Organization, Criticism of Yahoo!, Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), Criticism of The New York Times, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of Linux, Criticism of Osama bin Laden, Category:Criticism of religion, Criticism of Adobe Flash, Criticism of sport utility vehicles, Criticism of Second Life, Criticism of recycling, Criticism of patents, Criticism of EDO Corporation, Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's schemata, Category:Criticism of journalism, Criticism of the Space Shuttle program, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Criticism of non-standard analysis, Category:Criticism of Islam, Criticism of McDonald's, Category:Criticism of feminism, Category:Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of marriage, Criticism of eBay, Category:Criticism of monotheism, Criticism of Sylvia Browne, Scientology controversies, Category:Criticism of atheism, Criticism of the 9/11 Commission, Criticism of NASCAR, Criticism of IPCC AR4, Digg, Criticism of ESPN, Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), Criticism of Traian Băsescu, Criticism of the FRA law
I could go on, google lists 152 wikipedia lists 262 criticism pages, but I think the point has been adequately made. travb (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually... — neuro 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for the long list of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And have you taken a look at them? How many of them have their neutrality disputed? (and rightly so). How many contain vast amounts of WP:OR. Or are absolute merge candidates? How many are full of any titbit taken from some newspaper on some non-notable topic? Should I go on? Because the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is not valid. Every article has to be judged on its own merits, and that is why I have nominated this, instead of simply re-directing, for the reasons provided to Biophys above. --Russavia 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
And I would also draw your attention to WP:POVFORK where it also states: "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. - I can see no agreement amongst any editors to create this POVFORK. --Russavia 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
What you are partaking in is WP:GAME, in particular, Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy. -- although yes, this is an essay, yet, an oft referred to essay, and yes, the essay does say that calling forks POV is POV, but this has been brought here to AfD in order to weigh up community consensus on this article, and this article only. I have stated my reasons for AfD above, and others will surely weigh in with their opinions in order to gather consensus. But one thing you haven't touched on is the policy which is relevant; that being WP:NPOV. How exactly does a criticism of... article achieve NPOV, when the content of the article is set-up by its very title? It would be no different to me starting Praise of Vladimir Putin, it would be an inherrently POV article. And thanks also for providing that list, I will start merging many of them back into their parent articles in the coming days. --Russavia 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"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 Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Tony Blair, why is Criticism of Vladimir Putin any different? 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)
Then unless you can demonstrate how non-point of view can be gotten on this article then you can go on and on to yourself. Each article has to rise or fall on its own merits, and the existence or non-existence of other articles can not be used in reaching consensus on this one article. That's my last word on that. --Russavia 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
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 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This concern is something that you can take up at WP:Village Pump, or write an essay then propose it be a guideline. But right now, the predominant guideline that the nominator used for deletion WP:POVFORK, allows for criticism articles on wikipedia, such as Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Tony Blair. travb (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 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. Misplaced Pages'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)
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)
Thanks for you unsubstantiated comment, since WP:POVFORK is a guideline and 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)
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)
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)
From WP:BUNDLE, Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. There is some logic in discussing only one article first. --Russavia 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
There are no edit diffs in this ANI, please provide them. travb (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
My posting was limited, neutral, nonpartisan and open. Hence this is not canvassing.Biophys (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"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)
  • Very strong keep per travb and per WP:POVFORK itself, which does not prohibit criticism articles, but rather says, "At least the 'Criticism of ... ' article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the 'Criticism of ... ' article." Vladimir_Putin#Criticism is a reasonably-sized section of a long article, so a divergent article is appropriate. And, most importantly from my perspective, any attempt to stifle (sourced) criticism, on the basis that it is indeed criticism, is a form of censorship, and Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination appears to be predicated on the idea that criticism is inherently non-neutral and representing criticism on Misplaced Pages violates the WP:NPOV policy. That is untrue. As for the article itself, it's clearly a notable topic; there is no need to delete it. Moreover, since the nomination is erroneous, there is not even a potentially valid basis for deletion offered -- so a speedy keep would not be out of order. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how the Personal wealth section is Criticism. It's mish mash of things the article creator threw together, i.e. WP:SYN. Representing criticism is not NPOV, however, when done in an article entitled Criticism of... just how does it reach NPOV? Additionally, the main article is not that long, and ALL of the info present in this AfD article is already present in the main article. --Russavia 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
All of the info is already there? Oh yes, especially after such edits. Biophys (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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 WP:BURDEN), and the rest is information on who owns a TV station or two. It is not criticism per se. However, I am mindful that there is criticism of media freedoms in Russia being (perceived to be) curtailed, and ideally no article would have a "support" and "criticism" section, it would all be rewritten into coherent prose which explains all sides of the equation together, instead of being split into separate sections. That is in essence WP:NPOV. And yes, as this article has always been a priority for me, but never gotten around to, it will be gutted, rewritten and improved, and such things will be included. --Russavia 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Here are more criticisms of Putin deleted by Russavia:
deleting Council on Foreign Relations, Saint Petersburg Times and the official Kremlin website, president.kremlin.ru
deleting Asia Times, Radio Free Europe, inosmi.ru, International Herald Tribune
deleting Associated Press
Deleting UK Times Online, the San Diego Union Tribune, Radio Free Europe, The Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the New Statesman, RIA Novosti.
deleting UK Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, the book First Person, the book Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and the End of Revolution
Moscow Times, LA Times, BBC News
travb (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to support my POV, I am here to include what reliable sources say, in order for the article to be verifiable and presented neutrally. It is the burden of editors who wish to include information to include those sources, otherwise information can be removed. There isn't a single inclusion of information into any article by myself which is not properly referenced as required by those policies, and I expect the same from others. Is too much to ask? Read up on these policies and one can see in black and white what is there. As it stood, the only info which was sourced was "Now there is only one national independent channel, Ren-TV. There are also radio stations such as Echo of Moscow and a large selection of independent newspapers such as Novaya Gazeta, Moscow Times and Nezavisimaya Gazeta. InoSMI project delivers selected Russian translations of articles dedicated to Russia from foreign and Western media online on a daily basis and has a daily audience of 70,000–90,000 visitors, most of them Russians." - the first is to a broken link, the rest has nothing to do with criticism. But you'll be glad to know I am already working up on information on the media, all fully referenced, and all presented in an NPOV way. As to your other examples, Clinton's view on whether she thinks Putin has a soul or not has nothing to do with Foreign policy of Putin. And Medvedev changing the constitution also has nothing to do Putin...or is now that we criticise Person A for the actions of Person B? The criticism of Nashi is criticism of Nashi, not of Putin. But it is funny, even within the Support section of the article we have Criticism. And need I mention the other Criticism article which is at Putinism, and the one which was deleted at Putinisms. Just how many Criticism of Vladimir Putin articles do we need? Anyway, back to the Afd, if you want to moan about anything else I have or haven't done, please use my talk page. I've had my say at this AfD, that's all from me, and will let others have their say also on what we are here for, the discussion of a single article. --Russavia 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per User:Cosmic Latte. "Criticisms" articles are a valid way of presenting alternative notable viewpoints published in reliable, verifiable sources. Martintg (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:POVFORK.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:POVFORK allows criticism articles and in fact they're quite commonplace around here. Putin is a well-known public figure and there's no reason he can't have a criticism article. Oren0 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep--I understand nomination concern with WP:NPOV, but this should be addressed in the discussion page of the article and thru editing. --Jmundo (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Serious question here. Given that many people believe Criticism of Vladimir Putin is entirely appropriate, are those same people who want to keep this article, going to hold the same opinion when I start Support of Vladimir Putin/Praise of Vladimir Putin? It won't be a WP:POINT article in the slightest, because one need only read Vladimir_Putin#Support to learn that he once held approval ratings of 81%, the highest amongst any world leader, and hasn't fallen below 65% since November 1999. With 9 years of sky high approval ratings, there is going to be a lot of information in media, books, scholarly journals (scholarly journals is something which isn't present in any of the Putin series of articles, what does that indicate?), etc with which to build a well-written, entirely referenced Praise article. People are getting caught up on WP:POVFORK, whereas WP:NPOV is the relevant policy in play here. But let us for a moment concentrate on WP:POVFORK only. Editors have stated that there is nothing in WP:POVFORK which forbids such a criticism article, well I challenge that there is nothing in WP:POVFORK that forbids a praise article. If ""Criticisms" articles are a valid way of presenting alternative notable viewpoints published in reliable, verifiable sources.", why could this not also apply to Praise articles, particularly with this particular person, because it could be argued that the alternative view is the praise. WP:POVFORK doesn't forbid it. One could also argue, any attempt to stifle (sourced) praise, on the basis that it is indeed praise, is a form of censorship, and Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED.. I don't expect anyone to answer this question, but have raised it to hopefully make people think. But, if you look at WP:NPOV, and in particular Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article_naming, doesn't an article entitled Criticism of PersonA smack of POV right at the get go? Think about it, how does one achieve NPOV when the stage is set from its very title? What exactly is the point of WP:NPOV when we have 150+ articles which have, and are allowed to have, such POV titles? --Russavia 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep appropriate article--a normal Misplaced Pages way of handling such topics for major political figures, and other controversial topics, in order to keep the main article relatively straightforward. It's one of the proper uses for forking, not a POV fork. DGG (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree. Putin is a public political figure, hence an article detailing published criticisms of his political agenda is entirely justified. Martintg (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • Strong Keep I am against merger as that would make the parent article too long.--RandomHumanoid 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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 reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on 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 Misplaced Pages otherwise undue weight is being given to the minority view. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
there are those who would delete that also, for the same incorrect reasons. DGG (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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, Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy. This does not belong in a criticism article but in Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy, which has its own article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Domestic_policy should be in a section of Vladimir Putin called Domestic policy, and perhaps have its own article Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin. (something that I am currently working on ideas for). ALL of these issues should be covered in their separate sections which do or don't currently exist, not in a POVFORK; by ensuring that the information is included in the relevant sections of the main article (which I will attest to, all information in this article is present in Vladimir Putin), this is the only way that coherence can be achieved and further WP:NPOV. This goes not only for this article, but it is my opinion on ALL criticism of articles. --Russavia 00:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Section break
WP:AGF is still observed at Misplaced Pages. Violations of such are much frowned-upon here. B.Wind (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (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.