Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical dissolution of the Russian Federation

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. The argument to keep this is relatively straightforward; those arguing to keep say the topic has SIGCOV, and present some sources to back this up. There are broadly speaking two arguments to delete; the first, that this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL; the second, that it is a violation of WP:SYNTH to the point of becoming original research. I find the CRYSTAL argument somewhat weaker on the face of it, because policy explicitly allows for articles when sufficient coverage exists. However, several editors argue that this topic is not typically framed the same way in the sources as it is framed here, and as such it isn't clear that there is in fact sufficient coverage of the article topic as it stands. The synthesis argument is also strong; we should not be concocting an article topic when reliable sources are exploring a broader and more nuanced set of circumstances. These arguments have largely not been rebutted. There is some support for a merger and redirect to an article with broader scope. There is no clear consensus as to a target, and as such I can't close this in favor of a merge, but if anyone wishes to develop the content here toward a merger I would be willing to refund this to userspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical dissolution of the Russian Federation[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Yet another speculative article in the same vein as Second American Revolution (deleted), Second American Civil War (also deleted), and Potential breakup of the United Kingdom {redirected). Not as bad as the two American articles (which were largely expressions of hyperbole), but like the UK article it concerns something that hasn't happened and may never happen, or if it does, may fail to conform to analysts' projections. It's a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - I think this is quite hard. Whilst I can see the WP:CRYSTAL argument, it is also hard to argue that this isn't a notable talking point when Putin himself refers to it. The trouble for me is that it it going to be hard to write a balanced piece when the two main sources of references are Russian language (likely pro-Putin) commentary and English language (likely pro-NATO) commentary. Whilst they may be expressing the same idea, presumably the intention is very different and may be reacting and/or feeding off the language of the other. So I'm not sure what to do with that. JMWt (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Wasn’t this already AFD’d before?) The subject clearly meets WP:GNG, with hundreds or thousands of RS’s about it.[1][2] (For crying out loud, please refer to the guidelines when proposing deletion.) Plenty of things that haven’t happened are valid encyclopedic subjects: e.g., end of the universe, siege of Minas Tirith. —Michael Z. 18:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{no it hasn't, at least under this name) Yeah, lots of people talk about this, if only to bulk up the pages of Foreign Policy and its ilk, but it's still all speculative analysis and thus material about events that may or may not occur. And your comparisons with WP:OTHERSTUFF are inapt and irrelevant. The siege of Minas Tirith has happened, in the pages of Tolkien's novel; the end of the universe is a matter of scientific inquiry not subject to the whims of human individuals. By contrast it's not the least bit unlikely that the speculations of this article will be overcome by events even in the near-term, much less decades off. The problem isn't notability; it's that the subject is not proper to an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re misinterpreting the guideline. We are not speculating. We are reporting the fact that reliable sources are discussing the politics of the RF, its possibilities, and the ramifications of present actions. “Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included.” —Michael Z. 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secession in Russia (2nd nomination) is a previous nomination of this article. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen this being talked about a lot since the start of the war. Which has always struck to me as Western wishful thinking because I doubt it happens. But I thought the same about a coup taking place. Oh well. The point is I'm pretty sure there's enough material talking about this. Definitively more than a "Second American Revolution". As JMWt has pointed out even the current tsar of Russia acknowledges this scenario. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is speculative. Compare it to the Hypothetical partition of Belgium, which also covers a hypothetical future political event, but does so by discussing hypotheticals put forward by various parties in Belgian politics during discussions specifically regarding the Flemish Secession Movement. It's the difference between "How might the Russian Federation Collapse?" And "What do various people argue would happen if a specific group of Belgians got their way." To the extent that the article up for deletion contains content similar to the Hypothetical partition of Belgium article, that content can be added to the Separatism in Russia article. 74.101.163.85 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Is not a live political debate, in Russia or elsewhere. While we can cover hypothetical or theoretical scholarly analyses, pulling together disparate discussions of hypothetical reconfigurations of Russia that have little in common runs the substantial risk of Original Research by synthesis. Would need the existence of secondary sources analyzing various models of Russian dissolution and discussing them as a topic to be a viable article and I don't see that here. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or Rename~~. The term is used in academic literature, as well as by politicians and historians, to discuss the influence of various factors, primarily the unique case of the republics of Russia being part of the Russian state, on statehood and federalism. The term "hypothetical" in this context doesn't imply "future" or "predicted". I specifically recommend reading works by Shevchenko, Shaplentokh, and Surkov, referenced in the article. The article, the title of which seemingly enticed some editors to add a bunch of speculations, should not be considered an exhaustive source on the meaning of the term and the available sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the Mellk's merge/split proposal in the comments below as an alternative. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Merge. I'm persuaded by Rosguill's arguments and the comments from other editors that the available WP:SECONDARY sources might not be sufficient to write a good article with the current title and scope. While I still see value in renaming the article to a less sensationalist title, such as one focused on statehood or federalism, I believe merging it with the Separatism in Russia - given that the majority of its text and sources concentrate on that topic - or considering deletion due to WP:NPOV concerns based on the rationale of WP:ATD-E are viable alternatives that I wouldn't oppose. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keepthe article appears to provide a comprehensive overview of various aspects of the topic, including historical precedents, the views of the scientists and public figures, etc. Reliable sources, good coverage, not fringe theory or original research. Keep. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is possibly the strongest of the recent of these types of articles brought to AFD. I still worry it's a bit of a COATRACK. There are sources from several different decades. discussing this idea in various contexts. There are some good articles in here, but putting them all together like this still feels a bit SYNTH. I don't quite have it in me to run all the sources through Google Translate. Can anyone point me to any surveys across decades/topics that discuss this broadly, including the last couple years? —siro χ o 03:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English-language sources might use slightly different terms: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=+Russia+federalism+secession, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=+Russia+federalism+viability, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=russia+disintegration etc PaulT2022 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe be best to merge to Separatism in Russia if mostly about secession. Mellk (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the topic is somewhat wider (see introduction in Federalism, Democratization, and the Rule of Law in Russia for example), and Russian statehood or Federalism in Russia would be more appropriate, but a merge to Separatism in Russia can be an option too if its scope can be widened to include implications to the entire country instead of focusing on individual regions. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I think it would be better to merge to the separatism article and also have an article about federalism. Actually, I am surprised there is not already one, considering the changes and weakening of federalism over the past 20 years to the point it is almost practically non-existent. Mellk (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment A lot of people are focusing on the sourcing and are not really addressing the criticism I made: it may be sourced speculation, but it's still speculation. Look, Putin may get hit by a meteor tomorrow, and nobody really has a good handle on what the outcome would be, never mind in extreme contingency of such an event. The record on these speculations is extremely poor, and it's just not an encyclopedic subject. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lo and behold, there is an article about Putin getting hit by a meteor tomorrow.

The criticism is valid for the title and a significant portion of the content, but not for the subject. Why would federalism and morphing of the mode of government of a given country not be an encyclopedic subject?

One could remove all poorly sourced speculations and there'd be plenty of material describing the processes that were ongoing for the last three decades and scholars' and politicians' opinions theorising about the reasons behind them. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources have made the speculations to the level that the speculation itself meets GNG, we can write an article on the subject. My concern is SYNTH. There are so many different contexts under which the sources we have were written. For example, I have yet to see a 2022 or 2023 article that ties recent events to the contexts in 1990s or 2000s. The sources may very well exist but I haven't seen them yet. —siro χ o 05:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Notability is necessary, but not sufficient. WP:CRYSTAL for one, addresses what kind of material is to be included, regardless of what has been written about it. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From that link: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. —siro χ o 02:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man you fooled me, I thought the article was actually named "Putin getting hit by a meteor tomorrow", that would have been way funnier.★Trekker (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something being speculation has no impact on if it passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to pass GNG is not the justification for deletion given. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge/delete - I coincide with the COATRACK, synthesis, and CRYSTAL views, and tried to assuage them by looking for peer-reviewed sources in particular: among the bibliography amassed here and at the ru.wiki article, the only source that clearly begins to establish a basis for notability is the Shevchenko source. Its bibliography, unfortunately, did not point to any other overviews of a similar quality. The sources that to me establish the notability of a subject like this in the face of its inherently speculative nature are reviews of literature on the topic that serve as secondary sources tracking the discourse, its history and evolution and its impacts on society more broadly. I don't find the cited Shaplenkoth and Surkov pieces to be a good basis for an article with the current scope. Searching on Google Scholar in Russian, virtually all results are about the Bolshevik Revolution or the collapse of the USSR, or else use raspad to refer to decay and a more general fall in stature, rather than dissolution and balkanization. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. There are 58 citations in the article, but only a handful of them (1, 2, 3, 4) directly cover the subject of the article in depth, at least as far as I can tell since so many are in Russian. Note that most of these sources are thinktanks like Atlantic Council and American Enterprise Institute, whose role is in part to predict and influence the future based on a political agenda, not neutrally describe the state of international affairs. If 90%+ of the sources don't even directly cover the topic in question, that's clearly a sign of synthesis and original research being written, rather than a summary of secondary reliable sources. Steven Walling • talk 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the two delete votes above: I think it's also important to note that this is a translation from ru-wiki that does not fully make sense in English. For example, the lede has this sentence: The term is frequently used in academic literature and journalism in discussions about Russian statehood and challenges that are perceived to threaten the unity and integrity of the Russian state. Both cited sources are in Russian! No evidence whatsoever is given that suggests "dissolution of the Russian Federation" is frequently used in journalism and academic literature. -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2023 (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.