Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin

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. Whether or not it should be merged is an editorial matter and need not be decided here. Sandstein 06:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phone Call to Putin

Phone Call to Putin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Reason: non-notable slang term Content can be moved to List of torture methods and devices. DonaldDuck 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This expression is widely known in Russia and supported by several reliable third-party English sources.Biophys 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  This expression is in no way widely known in Russia. Google search for "Phone call to Putin" and "torture" in Russian give only several dozen links and basically, they refer to only one newspaper article. Google search in English gives only a dozen relevant links which describe only one case of police brutality.DonaldDuck 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I included several references in the article that describe such method of torture as very common in Russia.Biophys 14:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All references describe single case of police brutality. There is no evidence that the phrase "Phone call to Putin" is common.DonaldDuck 07:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to electric shock#Torture. It's not even clear that this is a widely used term among police, only among these particular police in the incident. It's probably one of just many nicknames that the method has acquired in different locations and times. --Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. According to RFE/RL report, this method is "so common" that it even has a name: the "phone call to Putin." (see My Only Thought Was To Escape The Torture). Hence the notability of the retm can be established.Biophys 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per Dhartung. This is a neologism whose notability and widespread use cannot particularly be verified. The article Besides, when Putin leaves office, I bet they'll start calling it something else. This information can all be handled elsewhere (and there's nothing to say about it beyond what's already there). - Che Nuevara 14:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course one could easily create a more general article Torture in Russia, but this specific subject is still notable in my opinion.Biophys 14:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one could write such an article, and, if it were appropriately sourced and written, I would endorse such an article. But there isn't much to this topic that isn't already said in its proper place, the electric shock article. - Che Nuevara 15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:Notability policy. It tells: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That has been established here in my opinion. This article does not tell about electric shock. It tells about a specific term, which is also connected to a notable human rights case submitted to Europen Court.Biophys 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there could be an article about torture in Russia, and this case (or series of cases) may even warrant its own article. But allow me to call your attention to a few related clauses in WP:N:

"Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.

This neologism is not known to be in wide use. We have to take the journalists' word for it that it is, but they offer no evidence thereof. In addition, there is almost nothing that can be said about this that is unique from the electric shock#torture section.

Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.

What are the odds that anyone will call it this in 10 years? Very unlikely.

This terms is real, yes. But that does not make it encyclopedic. - Che Nuevara 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's notable as a specific type of torture used as part of one nation's political process. I would expect that there's a similar article concerning interrogation methods used at Gitmo, whether one disagrees over whether those are justified, or "torture" . Mandsford 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not a specific type of torture -- electric shock#Torture is a specific type of torture, and "phone call to Putin" is a cutesie neologism for it. As I said, Torture in Russia would be a legitimate article. A silly name which may or may not be in wide use (we have no real evidence of its use, just the claim of a journalist) is not a legitimate article. And to say it is "used as part of one nation's political process" is nigh on libel, especially because it has the president's name in it. - Che Nuevara 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or just plain Delete: But certainly does not require its own page. Most of the "references" are incidental, referring to torture rather than the specific subject; those that do all relate to the same event. Even searching with the Russian звонок Путину and its transliteration, zvonok Putinu, does not reveal other cases. Though I'm inclined to believe it's a genuine term, it's currently more of a news item than an encyclopaedic article. ObfuscatePenguin 05:10, 30 October 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.