Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitch Wars
From 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. John254 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bitch Wars
The article does not cite any sources whatsoever, and it has been tagged as such for quite some time. RobertM525 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per countering systemic bias, clearly interesting and notable subject, there are hundreds of thousands of articles more demanding of afd than this. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Other articles are worse" is not sufficient grounds for an article to be kept. Per WP:PROVEIT, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'd love to see this article sourced and kept, but if it isn't, it needs to go. And those other articles? Yeah, they should be nominated for deletion, too; not used as grounds to justify the existence of other articles like them. RobertM525 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is when systemic bias is such an important issue on wikipedia, so I simply disagree with the first part of your comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you remove the "Thanks" part from your comments? It's reeeeally annoying. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Under no circumstances, please do not direct such comments to me, see WP:Civil and stop beiong a jerk. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete- found some minors sources but nothing to meet WP:N. SunCreator (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep now that some references are added. SunCreator (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Your ignorance is not the reason for deletion. If you want references, why don't you ask about it politely at Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board? Obviously the topic is of notability, not some junk fictional universes from computer games or pornstars. `'Míkka>t 05:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment To be fair to the nominator the {{unreferenced}} tag has been on this article for over six months. And right now despite your assertion otherwise, there is not one reference given on the article to verify it's notability. SunCreator (talk)
- The article was written three years ago when policies of WP:V were lax and deletionism was not so rampant. "And right now" people have life besides wikipedia, you know. I have at last found some time to waste and added references. I doubt you will find anything in English online, though. `'Míkka>t 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment To be fair to the nominator the {{unreferenced}} tag has been on this article for over six months. And right now despite your assertion otherwise, there is not one reference given on the article to verify it's notability. SunCreator (talk)
- We don't need anything in Engl;ish. This encyclopedia is written in English but it is not about the world as seen through English speaking eyes, it is about the world as a whole (the sum of knowledge etc). Thanks, SqueakBox 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm with you on that, times have changed. You might like to look at this also Afd on Median Europe. Ah I see you have already :) SunCreator (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what your joke hints at, but unlike deletionists, I suggested a viable solution to salvage the dubious article, see Talk:Central and Eastern Europe#Suggestion of another article. `'Míkka>t 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with you on that, times have changed. You might like to look at this also Afd on Median Europe. Ah I see you have already :) SunCreator (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep - notable subject, often referred in the Gulag-related literature Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. I can believe that the subject of the article is real and notable, but without any references to prove it, it can't be included in Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)On second thoughts, keep. A Google search finds this mention [1], which isn't much, but is enough to convince me that this was a notable historical phenomenon. Given that, the article should stay; it can always be improved later. Terraxos (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)- Keep. Another sign of cultural bias against Eastern Europe. - Darwinek (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I've read a bit about blatnoy culture and this adds up for me. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of whether or not it's true. I'm not doubting the article. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Verifiability is derived through sources. Without sources, the article is not verifiable, and thus not eligible for being on Wikipedia. Even the article on Canada, something I doubt anyone would question the existence of, needs sources. Per WP:V (and WP:NOR), we can't just write articles here about things we've seen, read, or heard of, no matter the topic or how accurate our articles turn out to be. RobertM525 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was unverified. I believed it could be verified by a visit to a good library. Old-style articles on encyclopedic topics that have survived being read and potentially edited by hundreds of people with knowledge of the subject are in their way more honest than sourced articles that have not undergone the most rigorous review. They claim no authority, they cherry-pick no sources, they misrepresent none, and they do not give potential editors pause on any point of dispute. I prefer that we have an article of this sort than no article. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of whether or not it's true. I'm not doubting the article. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Verifiability is derived through sources. Without sources, the article is not verifiable, and thus not eligible for being on Wikipedia. Even the article on Canada, something I doubt anyone would question the existence of, needs sources. Per WP:V (and WP:NOR), we can't just write articles here about things we've seen, read, or heard of, no matter the topic or how accurate our articles turn out to be. RobertM525 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep While the article might not be (admittedly) well cited, it is a well documented historical event. It was featured on the History Channel, "Organized Crime: Russian Mafia" program. Arm (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone actually produces a reliable source (hearsay and blogs don't count). When this is done, I suggest moving the article to something like Snitch wars in Soviet prisons as the current title is too vague and suggestive (I was expecting something about gangsta rappers). Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable subject; the article is now sourced (to my satisfaction, at least).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding as to why I nominated this article for deletion, especially from Darwinek and Míkka. They seem to be suggesting that this is some kind of attack against Eastern Europe or Russia or Russians. I honestly cannot say that I understand this; it's some kind of Argumentum ad populum or simply two wrongs make a right. I nominated this article for deletion because it is reflective of what's wrong with Wikipedia right now: too many articles are written without sources, even about topics that ought to be well-written and well-sourced. It undermines Wikipedia's credibility to have articles like this. People seem to be thinking that my nomination of this article was somehow special--why this article and not others? Because this was an article I happened to be on, and rather than just leaving articles tagged "unreferenced" for years on end, I'd like to see the articles get fixed. And look what happened here: only when the article was threatened with deletion did anyone bother to actually fix it. It's sad. I do not buy the excuse that, "I'm busy--I don't have time to make this article 'right.' Just leave it alone, because it deserves and article even if it's a bad one." Look, if you choose to take this AfD nomination as some kind of attack against Russians or Eastern Europe--go ahead. I can't stop you from being that irrational. But, after reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing, I've realized that we Wikipedians need to take a more proactive approach to making Wikipedia worthwhile. So, per WP:PROVEIT, I believe articles need to either be fixed or be deleted. Yes, even articles that are on topics that deserve a good article. RobertM525 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I dont know about Darwinek, but you ignored my explanations. Let me recap them. New generations of bold deletionists driven by best intentions now and again fail to understand that quite a few articles were written long time ago when rules were not so strict. Some subjects are of historical note, but unlike US presidential elections or pornstars, no one really watches these pages or works on them unless some drastic happens. I have already written above: if you want so badly some article fixed, go to the corresponding wikiproject, noticeboard, original authors, whatever. But it seems you have a different desire, just delete it and done with the problem. You also seem to lack basic comprehension skills. You wrote I do not buy the excuse that, "I'm busy. This was not what I said. I basically said "I am busy, but I have found some time to fix it". You may further pretend to be naive and ask "" why you did not do it earlier?" My answer: there is HUGE amount of work in wikipedia to be done "earlier". And I am doing it 25/7, but in other areas. But when some mop/scissors wielding wikipoliceman jumps in with threats of deletion, then don't be surprized that I will put aside my regular work, because you created unnecessary exaggerated panic. And you last sentence of aggressive deletionism is duly noted. You are not alone, unfortunately. But fortunately there is some fierce and propactive opposition to your extremism. And no, wikipedia is not failing despite years of bitching and groaning and whinning of some, because some others are working. `'Míkka>t 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Another piece of your problem with comprehension: Darwinek wrote "cultural bias". He did not write "attack against Eastern Europe". A bias is a bias, not attack, and Darwinek referred to a well-recognized problem in wikipedia. Please read wikipedia:Countering systemic bias. No one is going to accuse Americans that they don't know Eastern Europe. But a larger problem is that many people refuse to recognize their ignorance in certain areas and refuse or simply lazy to educate themselves before issuing judgments. `'Míkka>t 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- P.P.S. I have to admit that partly the guilt is mine: in my "keep" vote I should have stated that I've been going to add references to the article. I suspect this would have helped to avoid some heat here. `'Míkka>t 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Another piece of your problem with comprehension: Darwinek wrote "cultural bias". He did not write "attack against Eastern Europe". A bias is a bias, not attack, and Darwinek referred to a well-recognized problem in wikipedia. Please read wikipedia:Countering systemic bias. No one is going to accuse Americans that they don't know Eastern Europe. But a larger problem is that many people refuse to recognize their ignorance in certain areas and refuse or simply lazy to educate themselves before issuing judgments. `'Míkka>t 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- You spend a lot of time attacking me rather than my argument that the article does not belong on Wikipedia without sources. And when you are arguing against the deletion itself rather than me and other "ignoramuses," you seem to say that if an article is based upon something that Wikipedia doesn't have much coverage of (i.e., Eastern Europe), then the rules for its inclusion are much more lax than if it is on "US presidential elections or pornstars." I would say that it does not matter what the article is about: the same rules apply to all. Namely, an article must be notable and verifiable. Certainly, I am not arguing that the article is not noteworthy. I'm not even arguing that the article's content is wrong. What I am arguing is that, when I put the AfD up, it was not verifiable within itself (read: sourced). RobertM525 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds like so much self-justification, of course the same rules apply. There is an interesting new debate developing that the whole encyclopedia needs to be NPOV and bloated coverage of everything American while deliberately attacking the coverage of other cultures is an NPOV violation as well as violating pretty much every other goal we have. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- As a deletionist myself I reiterate my above comment that this is not the article or the subject area to be deleting. Along with Africa, Latin America and other parts of the world we really lack coverage of Eastern Europe/Russia whereas we have bloated coverage especially of North America and the UK, and that countering systemic bias is very much what is at issue. We should probably try to make countering systemic bias into policy to nip this kind of thing in the bud. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds like so much self-justification, of course the same rules apply. There is an interesting new debate developing that the whole encyclopedia needs to be NPOV and bloated coverage of everything American while deliberately attacking the coverage of other cultures is an NPOV violation as well as violating pretty much every other goal we have. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I dont know about Darwinek, but you ignored my explanations. Let me recap them. New generations of bold deletionists driven by best intentions now and again fail to understand that quite a few articles were written long time ago when rules were not so strict. Some subjects are of historical note, but unlike US presidential elections or pornstars, no one really watches these pages or works on them unless some drastic happens. I have already written above: if you want so badly some article fixed, go to the corresponding wikiproject, noticeboard, original authors, whatever. But it seems you have a different desire, just delete it and done with the problem. You also seem to lack basic comprehension skills. You wrote I do not buy the excuse that, "I'm busy. This was not what I said. I basically said "I am busy, but I have found some time to fix it". You may further pretend to be naive and ask "" why you did not do it earlier?" My answer: there is HUGE amount of work in wikipedia to be done "earlier". And I am doing it 25/7, but in other areas. But when some mop/scissors wielding wikipoliceman jumps in with threats of deletion, then don't be surprized that I will put aside my regular work, because you created unnecessary exaggerated panic. And you last sentence of aggressive deletionism is duly noted. You are not alone, unfortunately. But fortunately there is some fierce and propactive opposition to your extremism. And no, wikipedia is not failing despite years of bitching and groaning and whinning of some, because some others are working. `'Míkka>t 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Notability is asserted in the article per numerous sources. Nominator should probably look to places such as WICU and the article rescue squad if a subject is notable but the page does not assert notability. AfD is not forced cleanup. Celarnor Talk to me 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment for new voters. Please note that the references were added only after the article was nominated, so the initial concern was legitimate; only IMO it should have been addressed in a different way. `'Míkka>t 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be sourced sufficiently now. Could probably be improved, but that's not a reason for deletion Bfigura (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The other day I was wanting to check George Bush's ancestry and came across the interesting suggestion in the Barbara Bush article that he was the grandson of Aleister "The Beast" Crowley. There's some web sources out there for this but, nevertheless, I decided that they were not to be trusted and so reverted. This article that we are now contemplating suggests that Joseph Stalin - an important political and historical figure - reneged upon a deal. This is conceivable, like the Crowley allegation, but it could equally be made up by someone who wants to fling some mud at Stalinism/communism/Uncle Joe/the Russian mafia. And my general understanding is that many/most sources from the Soviet era are dubious due to their regrettable tendency to rewrite history. And we don't actually seem to have a direct citation for this major libel. And if it is in cyrillic, I'm not going to know what it means since this is the English Wikipedia and I don't speak Russian. Now, it doesn't much matter if someone gets their facts wrong about Sailor Moon but, per WP:REDFLAG, something of this importance requires impeccable sources that verify the matter. I'm still not seeing them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's also an after-the-fact "source," and was not really the source of the original author's text. FWIW. RobertM525 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article does require a thorough rewrite. Almost all Russian sources cited (but on recent book I didn't verify the author) are not by professional criminologists or historians and they contradict each other in some significant parts. I will think what good might be made of this. `'Míkka>t 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's also an after-the-fact "source," and was not really the source of the original author's text. FWIW. RobertM525 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The topic seems notable enough and is now cited. I would prefer it be renamed to Suka Wars. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- A name change is being discussed on the talk page. Please explain why the present name should be prefered, if you feel that it should. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The book Red Mafiya by Robert Friedman explains the term. I've mentioned it on the talk page if anyone wants to do the cite. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Robert Friedman is poor reference. He is a little-known reporter His book is about Russian Mafia in the US, written in paparazzi style, more for impression than for factual accuracy. The page which (barely) mentions Suka Wars has no refs to sources of info and ridden with factual errors. `'Míkka>t 22:03, 14 April 2008 (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.
