Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kompromat (2 nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kompromat[edit]

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

Nothing but a dicdef for a Russian word for "defamatory materials" supplied with a random connection of refs about defamation in Russia, added after the article was deleted for the first time. - Altenmann >t 07:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rework into an article with an English language title such as Compromising material or Blackmail in Russia. This is the EnWP, not RuWP or Wiktionary. DexDor (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is hugely relevant to the subject of high-level politics and not only in the former USSR. It also appears to be well sourced. There's no rule I know of that an English WP article has to be translated to an English word; it's an ethnic word of art. It has at least been transliterated to the Roman alphabet. I WOULD support a merge of this if some "smorgasbord"-of-similar-concepts-across-national/ethnic-lines article already exists or later is created, also a common occurrence at WP, where the similar concepts are then distinguished from one another. And THAT article WOULD probably have an English name.Paavo273 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A random collection of examples is not a reference for a concept. The article is even wrong in its definition: 'kompromat' is a generic term, irrelevant to victim (politican or not). It clearly shows OR of a person who even does not know Russian language. There is no encyclopedic article about the concept. Blackmail in Russia is a moderately silly idea, just as Sincerity in Russia, Gluttony in Russia ((any abstract cxoncept) in Russia; you got the idea); Petty theft in Russia, Pissing on the toilet walls in Russia, Adultery in Russia, Running red light in Russia, etc. Unless you have a scholarly source that analyzes the concept, to assert the notability of the topic, the article is nothing but WP:SYNTH, a WP:COATRACK of examples. - Altenmann >t 09:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular term, page is well sourced in terms of references, and notability. If there is disagreement with the term, it can be added on page. OccultZone (Talk) 09:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Popular term in Russian language, yes. But this is English wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 09:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DO you really think it is a great idea to populate English wikipedia with aritlces about russian "popular terms", such as Kaznokradstvo, Mzdoimstvo, Krasnorechie, Velikodushie, Razdolbai, Molokosos, Pidoras, Ministr, Komandir, Gruzovik, Voyennaya kontrrazvedka, chinusha, avtoritet (disambiguation). Do you really want them? Yust say yes, and I will make you happy very fast, and with plenty of nice looking reliable sources, too. - Altenmann >t 09:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Not a dictdef, plenty of sources, easily capable of expansion. --NSH001 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2014 (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.