Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dermocracy

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 delete. JForget 00:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dermocracy[edit]

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

Hardly notable foreign language neologism. This is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wiktionary, and even there it would be marginally appropriate at best. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Demschiza
Liberast

Colchicum (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Colchicum (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal for Demschiza, no opinion for liberast and dermocracy. Demschiza is a term describing the radical wing of Russian liberal thought, coined by Russian liberals themselves. It's not merely a neologism, but a description of a type of people. ellol (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of those. Only today did I read about 'Integrasts' in Estonia - i.e. Russophone residents of Estonia who have learnt the Estonian language and are well-integrated into society. Do we need an article on integrasty? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Demschiza, Liberast, Dermocracy, Putinjugend, Nashism etc into one Political neologisms in Russia article. M0RD00R (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dermocracy and Liberast - article provides no information beyond a definition and etymology of the word, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Demschiza - article extends beyond etymology into a discussion of the historical and cultural implications of the word, and is well sourced. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and can I once again add that group nominations are rarely helpful except where articles are dependent on each other or clones of each other? In articles with separate content each should be assessed separately on its merits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unbundle and relist grouping them is only going to cause confusion UltraMagnus^speak 11:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete all. Russian language pejoratives of no currency in English language. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All neologisms. No independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three per nom & SmokeyJoe.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:37, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Delete all, a blatant provocation. --ssr (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Russian neologisms. Anna Lincoln 21:18, 7 November 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.