Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chekism

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 (non admin) — H2O —  10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chekism

Chekism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A huge original essay about a nonnotable neologism: only 88 non-wikipedia google hits. Let the huge number of citations do not mislead you: this is a collection of picked quotations in support of the essay, WP:COATRACK style. `'Míkka 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. First of all, this article is not about a neologism but about a historical phenomenon called "Chekism". The existence and notability of this phenomenon was supported by multiple reliable sources, as one can see in the article. Second, a few references in scholarly publications are sufficient to estalish notability of the term. Here they are. According to a former FSB general, “A Chekist is a breed" (reference to article in The Economist). Furthermore, there are references to a couple of publications in "International journal of intelligence". A direct citation in this article includes also the following passage by a notable historian Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov: "It is not true that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a superpower (...) An absolute power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power — NKVD — MVD — MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau, Stalin’s personality, but the organization and the technique of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman."...A state Chekism, a party Chekism, a collective Chekism, an individual Chekism. Chekism in ideology, Chekism in practice. Chekism from top to bottom." Finally, no arguments that article has anything to do with WP:COATRACK has been provided by nominator. Keep in mind that WP:COATRACK "is an essay. It does not define a policy or guideline".Biophys 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical phenomenons are not created overnight by media, fortunately. WP should stick to widely used terminology. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, they are not created overnight. This phenomenon exists in Russia almost a hundred of years, according to cited sources.Biophys 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is neologism. It would be fine should the article say "this is recently invented term used by media for such and such purposes" but the current text is collection of rather unrelated facts trying to pretend wide and lasting acceptance of the term. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    How come "recent"? This was published by Avtorkhanov in October 8, 1950 - 57 years ago.Biophys 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    57 years ago, so what? It didn't click. There have been plenty of Kremlinologists since then, who would gladly picked up this catchy term, but obviously it is nothing but a conspiracy theory overemphacising the comarative significance of secret police. Soviet Union was no better no worse of any authoritarian regime, where someone has to collect information about suspected coups, to quietly poison possible pretenders and torture dissenters. Read some of Three Musketeers for change, may be you will write the "Cardinalism-Richeliuism" article. `'Míkka 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If a plenty of Kremlinoligists picked up the term, as you said, this article has every right to exist. "Obviously a conspiracy theory" sounds as a personal opinion. If any sources explicitlly say "this is a conspiracy theory", such views can be included in the article, which is not a reason for deletion. I do not know such sources. The existing sources (not me) claim that significance of secret police in the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia was much higher than in other authoritarian regimes.Biophys 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
FUI, a similar conspiracy theory exista about the USA aas well. Qouting: "Does the spookocracy want to destroy GWB and Cheney because of the purge to get rid of entire layers of incompetents revealed by 9/11 ?". Who wants to start spookocracy article here now? 417 google hits: 5 times more than for "chekism" (see on top), by the way :-) `'Míkka 04:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That is why one should not use Google searches to establish notability. An important matter is description of the term in scientific articles and scholarly books - reliable secondary sources. I found only one good source that uses "spookocracy" for Russia, but a lot of sources that use "Chekism", as one can see from the article.Biophys 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the very first version of the article reasonable (though possibly still NN), only later it accumulated pages of cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you think first version is reasonable, why delete the article?Biophys 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • About FSB and Putin there already exist the article "Silovik", so here we have needless forking of content.
    • The role of cheka/.../KGB in the former Soviet Union has nothing in common with the role of siloviki.
    • Patching up the Imperial Russia to this collection is outright absurd.
  • These are the reasonss I called this article coatrack-type essay. Policy or not, coatrack style is the obvious sign of OR. `'Míkka 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • P.S. Googing for "Siloviki" gives a whoopping 36,600 hits. `'Míkka 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Therefore I would suggest Biophys (who is basically the sole author here) to move Putin-related stuff into "Silovik", Soviet time pieces move into the opinion of Avtorkhanov (because your sentence "These ideas were also shared by..." is a dubious speculative generalization) and move on. `'Míkka 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • This article has not been created by me. According to WP:Notability it is enough to have several reliable third-party sources to establish notability of a subject, and we have much more than that - just looking at the list of references in the article and having as many as 800 Google hits. So, let's follow WP rules. There is no reason for deletion. BTW, this article has almost nothing about Putin. As about the Imperial Russia - please see the cited source. It was about Chekism.Biophys 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        • "It was about Chekism" - , it is your wrong opinion. It was chaotic rant about Putin. `'Míkka 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        • No matter how many reliable sources you have, the article spears about 4 superficially related subjects, whose only common denominator is secret service in Russia far past, past, and present, strung over a neologism which didn't catch on in original time, bt came handy to to bash Putin. Like I said, feel free to write four different articles.: Implerial Russia as police state, Soviet secret police (which is but a redirect to chronology now) and Siloviki. As for Avtorknanov's usage, I checked, and dindn't find that he use this term in his books The Reign of Stalin nor in Problems of the Peoples of the USSR. Surely "chekism" should have been a huge "problem of the peoples of the USSR" and backbone of "the reign of Stalin". It was a one-time catchy polemic word in a journal article, and now some wikipedians are eager to be sainter than Pope himself. `'Míkka 22:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
One can suggest a lot of different articles on related subjects. But this article satisfy WP:Notability, and there is no any other reasons for deletion. Only that matters.Biophys 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean up. Chekism is not a neologism, it repeatedly and constantly is used in both books ([1]) and peer-reviewed scientific articles ([2]), which are highest level of sources for Wikipedia. Alleged WP:COATRACK can be avoided by introducing more proper sources to the article and POV is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Sander Säde 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is a valid term, on a valid, well-documented topic. Turgidson 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per Biophys. Plenty of references treat this important subject. The article isn't perfect, but the idea of one is. Let's give it a chance. Biruitorul 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very valid and notable topic. As for the "neologism," all I know is that I am quite well-versed in modern Russian and Soviet history and have frequently heard the word "Chekism." It's not a fringe theory or obscure concept! —Preceding unsigned comment added by K. Lastochka (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mikka - non-notable original research. Relevant text can be moved to Cheka article.DonaldDuck 12:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and oppose merge with Checka First, as a neologism, it is about as old as soviet. The "-ism" should not be intrepreted as some ideology, but more like the suffix in "hooliganism" or "vandalism". Maybe chekist mentality would be a better title. It is about how generations under the shadow of all-powerful secret police has corrupted the Russian social fabric, and as such as much about the Russian Mafia and the oligarchs as the siloviks, the FSB, the KGB, the MVD, the OGPU and the Cheka, which is but the oldest manifestation of that secret police. Or oldet soviet manifestation, if you count in the Okhranka. The article is poor and would need some expanding in scope as well as some more encyclopedic writing style, but that's no reason for throwing it away. If the article about the Great Purge says that Jews were behind it or gives wp:undue weight to critisicing Stalin, you don't delete, you edit.--victor falk 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is nothing more than a collection of quotations from biased individuals. What's next, an article on Krovavaya Gebnya? Óðinn 15:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Chekism is no neologism at all. In Baltic states every citizen knows what Chekism is and what crimes it is respnosible. Do us this neologism is known since World War II. I found this article truthful and propper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.12.97 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral It seems to read like a high school essay or something like it. I agree that it certainly looks like a "Coatrack," but surely there must be some sources out there that aren't like that, right? I have added several types of cleanup tags to the article, but post no keep/delete vote here. —ScouterSig 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale was "a nonnotable neologism". But this is not a neologism, because the term has been used by notable historians 53 years ago ("A state Chekism, a party Chekism, a collective Chekism, an individual Chekism. Chekism in ideology, Chekism in practice. Chekism from top to bottom."). Moreover, the subject satisfy WP:Notability, because it has been described in numerous reliable sources clearly attributed in the article.Biophys 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in a forgottent for good essay recently dug up by Chechen nationalists. `'Míkka 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The cited work by Avtorkhanov was published in a good printed journal that has nothing to do with Chechen separatists (in 1953). Unfortunately, it is not accessible online like all old stuff. So, I provided a link to on-line source that satisfy WP:Source. There are other refences to "Chekism" as well.Biophys 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but it needs work. The lead, and indeed the entire article, fails to explain what "checkism" is. Someone above says: "In Baltic states every citizen knows what Chekism is". This seems to be the underlying assumption, and it is not OK. The article needs to be comprehensible to the lay reader. But all of this is for the editing process. The subject itself is clearly notable and I can see no reason to delete. As a neologism, it is not very neo. The logic of WP:COATRACK as a reason for deletion is very poor, it is instead an argument for improvement of an interesting subject. --SmokeyJoe 08:35, 2 November 2007 (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.