Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putin khuilo!

Putin khuilo!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

A crystal clear case of WP:ONEEVENT, created by Ukrainians to retaliate for the Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion in Donbass. Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the author of the paper once reverted the speedy deletion template and attempted to revert my AfD template.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean "created by Ukrainians"? What if "created by niggas"? Are you Russist?--Dim Grits 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

keep: It shouldn't be deleted as it's a popular international phenomenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.143.51 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted.

keep: Wikipedia has abundant coverage of e.g. World War II-era satirical songs that had just as much currency as this contemporary phenomenon from Ukraine. Hard to see how this is any different. It's well known, easy to source from across mass media, and has already played a part in a diplomatic kerfluffle. CRCulver (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — CRCulver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The first edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

discussion with sockpuppeter, now blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
discussion has already passed! [1]. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes. These are two different processes - about the same! Consider and previous discussion! --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep: It shouldn't be deleted as it's a popular international phenomenon, there are already songs and international incidents associated with it, including one with the Minister of the Foreign Affairs. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted.

CU-blocked for sockpuppeting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need articles about every insult that is hurled at a politician. Spinning Spark 10:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is not just a song, but also a meme. Besides authoritative enough. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=huylo Urban Dictionary: huylo
There is nothing about the song, only the word description. Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/ukraine-minister-deshchytsia-abusive-putin-russia
The song is not mentioned. The article is about Russian embassy incident. Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/16/khuilo-the-offensive-term-that-has-attached-itself-to-putin/
It's not a Washingtonpost article, but a personal blog.Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-16/why-diplomats-curse-about-ukraine
The article is mostly about Russian embassy incident, football chant is barely mentioned. Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://politics.caijing.com.cn/2014-06-17/114270748.html
The song is not mentioned. The article is about Russian embassy incident. Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ukrainian, and as much as I want his arguments to be false, they are not. The notability does not settle in one day. Barvinok (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is definitely not a WP:ONEEVENT and the term was mentioned lots of times by different World medias. At this moment it is an important part of story and helps get proper understanding of events and people's reactions. --DimaV83 (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted.

The third edit of this user overall; the first one in 2014.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: brings hatred among people (link already spreading), political insult, may harm people feelings. wiki is not a place for a fight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxcaeli (talk • contribs)
This template must be substituted.

if to follow your logic, then lets also delete page about Hitler, I'm sure, it brings hatred among neo-nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.49.208.82 (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The words exist, the melody accompanying these words exists, performers are (still) alive, and, the reader has the right to know, what’s that all about. --Керди (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CU-blocked as a sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The existing phenomenon is remarkable and it would be unfair to omit this knowledge. PositiveSky (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — PositiveSky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
First edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, do not misinform the audience. I made many contributions in different language sections of Wikipedia.PositiveSky (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions to other Wikimedia projects are commendable but are irelevant here since our policies are different from other projects. Additionally, you are participating in vote stacking.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
our policies has no interrelation with your slander that my account is single purpose. PositiveSky (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not write it is single purpose. Second, one more usage of this language, and I will take you to ANI. Third, this is, after all, your first edit in the Eglish Wikipedia. You did not take time to read the policies, but came here from the external sites to vote keep does not matter what. Your vote does not even have traces that you read my nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you wrote that. Check this words in the link given by you: few or no other edits. This is direct evidence of lie.
Comment. The article is currently referenced to Ukrainian sources only, which makes verification of claims difficult and best left for Ukrainian-speakers (which I am not). A quick google search shows there should be English sources. I'll abstain from voting now, but if somebody adds English sources ping me and I'll see if they show notability. The fact that this AfD is now suffering from what seems to be SPA vote stacking and canvassing is not helping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

posts by sockpuppeter, now blocked.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

+ IBTimes: [2], deutsche welle: [3]. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the phenomenon has gained a considerable attention, including international mass-media reports and a diplomatic row making it relevant enough to be kept. As to the "temporarity" of the phenomenon - there is no way to say how long it will last until it ends. So far, the topic is important, well-sourced, has got a considerable attention and the article must be kept.--vityok (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth edit of this user in 2014--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have time to check the user contributions anymore, but I hope the closing admin will disregard the vote stacking.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting discussion template: "consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." -- but obviously some users are trying to base it on 'contributions count' instead. What a nice new twist in continuing perversion of wikirules. 83.149.35.150 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There haven't been given any convincing arguments for the removal. --MelVic (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted.
Keep: this is definitely not a WP:ONEEVENT and a lots of people tries to find info about subject. Iomark04 (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted.

Point being that the article subject is sensitive for both Russians and Ukrainians to a personal level, therefore they should abstain from voting Barvinok (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: song have become widespread political and cultural phenomenon, influencing on situation in the region.

For example, president of Chechnya promised "to bring ukrainians to their knees for this song".

- http://instagram.com/p/pTroboCRmW/

There are also articles , on Wikipedia, on similar thematics, like "Der Fuehrer's Face"

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Fuehrer's_Face

92.49.208.82 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

Der Fuehrer's Face was an immensely popular recording (#3 on the U.S. charts) by a highly notable artist released by the most notable of record labels, still being discussed for its cultural impact 70 years later. I don't see logic to this argument at all. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 12:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as individually not notable, but likely usable in any article on Ukraine anti-Russian demonstration articles. Whether the article has any bias is irrelevant here - the problem is the song qua song simply fails notability guidelines on Wikipedia. AFAICT, the mentions are all in the larger context of demonstrations, and not strongly about the song itself. For example, the Guardian article is about a "chant" and abut a word one envoy used - not about a song, and absolutely not about a specific song to establish notability of the song. Collect (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there cannot be any secondary sources able to judge the song's impact. The song's surrounding context is ongoing, so all sources are primary by definition, and we cannot predict whether solid secondary sources will be published at a later date. "Der Führer's Face" is notable because it's been discussed by secondary sources, which looked back at the song and could judge its impact from a distance, and such sources clearly can't exist yet for this song. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No evidence of song's impact. Way too soon to see if it's anything substantial. Please note that the outcome of this discussion will be based on strength of argument and not by popular vote so flooding it with supporters is a waste of time.Cowlibob (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than 1 300 000 views of the video in 3 days https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kac73Ks_Yqo --Perohanych (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

youtube hits are not an indicator of notability for this project, sorry. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to an appropriate location, for now. The WaPo link is a valid source, the claim above of "It's not a Washingtonpost article, but a personal blog" is false. The blogging sections of reliable sources, particularly newspapers, are no different from a journalist penning a regular column. The Guardian and Bloomberg also contain brief mentions of the song/chant directly. 1 solid source and a few name-drops (there are others such as the Independent) bring this pretty close to the notability threshold. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a redirect would be okay but I can't think of where at the moment). There's a chance this might become notable in the future but I don't think it's there yet. The vote-spam actually does more harm than good. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: these words of the popular chants are widespread in the world, it is popular not only among football fans, but also among politicians. There are many references to authoritative sources.--Nikkolo (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Known expression that has become a political trendGeohem (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article on 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as this song not yet gained enough notability to deserve a separate article. If impossible to merge, then keep. Laitr Keiows (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Messir (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - in light of all the !vote stacking and the issues with reliable sources let alone the problems with notability, I suggest that the article be put into limbo to see if it becomes notable and achieves a level for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep: A useful article that lets people learn more about the people of Russia and their leadership.--Rkononenko (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the article's sources, I was leaning towards keeping this article, even though some of the opposing arguments are valid as well and are a reason for concern. Then I've noticed Pmedema's incubation proposal, and at this point of time it seems to be the perfect solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2014; 14:51 (UTC)
keep or keep and rename this song is known probably since March 30, 2014 (cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6bMheayBQ). Since then it became popular in the Ukraine in the context of the Russian military intervention and seems to deserve an encyclopaedic definition. If the title of the article is offending as such consider renaming it. Guswen (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The relevant criteria is WP:NSONG: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". This is one such source. If more sources can be found (I can't read Ukrainian so can't comment on the sources in the article) then my keep !vote would be stronger. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: History repeats ... This song is very similar to Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. --Рома (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it was created as retaliation is not really relevant to its notability. It appears notable enough, having received international media coverage in many countries.Hergilei (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NeilN; a second source is [4] (contains an entire video of the protest song) - I think others in the article now also qualify. I have voted Keep in discussions such as Santorum (neologism) and Stop Watching Us, which respectively deal with a meme and a single protest. I am very much opposed to reactions that covering the topic might offend or that something in the Ukraine is of too limited an importance --- these are bias that we must overcome. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mostly agree with Tarc, but this is moving fast and likely has become notable already. It might be on the border now of being a single event - the comment at the embassy - but the phrase and the song are intertwined with that. WaPo, Telegraph, Independent, and Bloomberg are all reliable sources. The RFE article at http://www.rferl.org/content/putin-profanity-ukraine-deshchytsya/25425498.html almost pushes me over the edge. It's a more rounded article geographically and its video is about Kharkiv, not about the embassy in Kiev. BTW, before anybody uploads the video as PD-US Gov, you should check thoroughly if Commons policy does reflect that RFE is actually US GOV (it seems obvious but I know that there has been some discussion). In any case within a few days we'll know if this meme takes off or dies out as quickly as it came. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for diplomatic history is a very important thing.A.Skromnitsky (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putin khuilo before Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion in Donbass.--Dim Grits 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim Grits (talk • contribs)

Delete only hatespeech of ukrainian nationalist. it is not only an offense against Putin, but it is also an offense against the Ukrainian people. --Jack User (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niggers in the White House is a rather racist poem from the turn of the century, yet we have an article on it since it is notable. The project does not exclude material simply because it is hateful, and having an article on something hateful is not the same as prompting or advocating for the speech itself. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: this WP:ONEEVENT & Agitprop can come back at the end of this century. Let's make a date now: we will meet here at December 31 2099 to restore it, ok? I'll be here, and you? --Jack User (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that WP:ONEEVENT applies to biographies, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i realize, that this scrap in the German Wikipedia has already been deleted three times. And in tr:Putin huylo! and be:Пуцін хуйло!, песня it is also nominated for deletion. But i am off here now: I've heard quality standards in the English Wikipedia are always lower than in any other language. I thought this was an urban legend: but no, it isn't. The level is here below zero. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a newspaper EOD. Have Fun, fake History. --Jack User (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficent notability, also a major diplomatic bone, made the Urban Dictionary.--Lute88 (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not as a song, but as a soccer fans chant. --Perohanych (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient notability, also a major diplomatic bone, made the Urban Dictionary --Ilyaroz (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's certainly widespread by now. Närking (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]