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.  Sandstein  06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The title is certainly a WP:POV problem, and so is most of the text. I'm not saying that some of this article isn't salvageable, but it seems we need to delete this article and start with a) a more neutral title and b) a game-plan for presenting any of this on an appropriate page. As-is, this article should not be continued under this title and straight POV. — Timneu22 · talk 12:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You were too fast to nominate. I suspect you just wanted to delete something, not to provide Wikipedia with content it requires. I oppose the nomination partly because this is mostly a plain translation from Russian Wikipedia article where it was approved, so it is within the overall policies. I suggest you don’t be such a deletist in the future. The article is in initial state and is to be expanded with more translations from the same Russian article. Sources are stated there, and that is said in References section, so article isn’t unsourced. You should mark the sections you don’t like with corresponding templates and shouldn’t attack the whole article. Please try to avoid saying things like "we need to delete this article and start with a)" because it’s in total contradiction with what Wikipedia is. --ssr (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As I discovered to my chagrin, just because something is in a different language version of Wiki doesn't make it OK for English Wiki, as they have different rules. David V Houston (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is true, but it isn't the rule: it may be, or may be not. A translation is generally a good way to setup an article. --ssr (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand by my nomination. A POV-pushing title does not seem like an appropriate encyclopedic title. I did not do CSD, because some of the information here may be accurate, but I thought AFD would provide a means to discussing how this page should be handled. — Timneu22 · talk 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Further, how is this encyclopedic: Russia is one of the most politically and economically corrupt countries in the world? — Timneu22 · talk 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you you didn't CSD, very kind of you, that proves you wanted just to delete something. Also, keep in mind articles generally should be edited and may be renamed, not "deleted and started with a)". The quote you posted is the intro which is further explained in the article body with sourced data. --ssr (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I stand by the nomination on POV grounds. I have nothing left to say; we'll look at other editor contributions. — Timneu22 · talk 12:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! there may be a bigger issue here. These templates are quite POV in themselves... thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Corruption in Russia is very real, and receives a fair bit of new coverage. Timneu22 asks how "Russia is one of the most politically and economically corrupt countries in the world?" is encyclopedic. Well, political and economic corruption surely are. Most print encyclopedias wouldn't go into the level of detail of individual countries, but Wiki has more space. It is most certainly notable, getting lots of coverage in news sources. The map provided shows that the statement isn't POV, but supportable. Similarly, [1] lists Russia as 127 in list of 159 countries. David V Houston (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How can one adequately reference a statement as blatant as [country] is one of the most corrupt contries in the world? — Timneu22 · talk 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • • There are corruption surveys and rankings, such as Corruption Perceptions Index and Bribe Payers Index. The statement would indeed probably need to be made more precise/narrow though. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is plenty of news coverage on the subject. And like David said, Wiki is not Paper, so we can give the topic its own article, unlike print encyclopedias which have practical size limits. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all the title does not display neutrality and wouldn't this title be offensive when there is only one article about corruption in countries this could possibly me merged with Russia or make a new article called political corruption instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkywalkerX2 (talk • contribs)
  • Russia is far from singled out in having an article on this: Corruption in Angola, Corruption in Chile, Corruption in Ghana, Corruption in Venezuela, Corruption in the_United_States, Corruption in Armenia, Corruption in India, Corruption in Nigeria, Corruption in South_Africa, Corruption in Canada, Corruption in Cuba, Corruption in Kenya, Corruption in Paraguay --Cybercobra (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As noted above with the templates. I am shocked — shocked — that these articles exist. They certainly aren't neutral; the Russian one has a list of things that are corruption, with no alternative viewpoints or balances. Maybe they are all fine, if we already have three "keep"s; but wow. Just wow. — Timneu22 · talk 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A real and relevant subject that is easily sourced. As the article is dealing with "corruption in Russia" the title is both accurate, specific and, viewed in the broader context that there is corruption everywhere, non-POV. This article meets none of the criteria for deletion. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as far as NPOV concerns go, I would like to point out that Corruption in the European Union redirects to Accountability in the European Union which seems like it could assuage the title concern as well as clearly expanding the scope of the article to allow for the presentation of both sides of the corruption issue. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That hypothetical change seems to go well beyond the scope of this AfD, but it might be something to keep in mind. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The issue of Corruption in Russia has been covered in reliable, third-party sources. If we are afraid of offending someone, let's start Corruption in the United States to balance this out. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's a joke. A sure fire way to create a bad article is starting it to "balance out" some perceived NPOV with another article. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke, just a combination of my ignorance of NPOV issues and an attempt to belittle the concerns raised by this AFD. Can you please explain why that would be a bad idea? It appears somebody did start Corruption in the United States, maybe it should be deleted. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable subject matter, if POV is a problem, that can be fixed via editing. Deletion is not a valid cleanup technique. --Jayron32 03:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is our editing policy to improve articles upon notable topics, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep relevant topic to encyclopedias. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —ssr (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Describes current and historic fact. Name is not POV; it is descriptive of the content and follows an established naming pattern of catgories and articles in Category:Corruption by country Hmains (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily sourced; "anti-corruption measures" is something that the government of the country itself touts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 17, 2010; 19:09 (UTC)
• Keep A real issue, which is worthy of an entry. Although it should delve into the most famous of corruptive practices in Russia -- the rise and rise of the oligarchs. As Ezhiki says, corruption is one of the main issues that Medvedev himself resolved to tackle under his presidency...remains to be seen if anything firm will or won't happen there. Anyway, a legit article, but one which requires more information in it. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have had to remove "One of the most well-known civil servants, most of whose assets are under his wife's name (more than US$1 billion), is the Moscow Mayor, Luzhkov. His wife is active in the construction business on the territory that is run by her husband." from the article as it is unsourced, and potential WP:BLP information; it is present in an article on corruption so one can infer that both the mayor and his wife are corrupt. There are, of course, allegations of this from different quarters, but for it to be present in the article, it needs to be referenced, presented as allegation, and of course be NPOV. I would suggest that people keep this article on their watchlist for violations of BLP, particularly unsourced ones, such as that which I just removed. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to transfer sources from Russian version, as the whole text is translated from there. Russian article references this sentence to "Немцов Б. Лужков. Итоги // Аналитический доклад, 08 сентября 2009 года (http://www.nemtsov.ru/?id=705917)". If linked to this source, can the sentence you removed be included back again? Do we need to transfer sources generally? I started with a footnote saying "Article is translated and sources are in Russian version", but it was later removed. --ssr (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources need to be transferred. They don't need to be translated though. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you don’t go further, I think I’m in favor of returning the sentence to the article with reference to the source mentioned. According to recent news, "most essential facts" from the Nemtsov report "were not disproved" during past court trials, so the source can be viewed as reliable and sentence can be returned. --ssr (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH HORSEY WOAH. You want to use a news report on Boris Nemtsov, a member of the so-called "opposition", being found guilty of libel and being ordered to pay compensation, due to a "report" he wrote in which he accused Luzhkov and his wife of corruption, as a reference in an article on Wikipedia which all but states that Luzhkov and his wife are corrupt? This demonstrates that not only was I absolutely correct in pulling that unreferenced information from the article, but am also correct in saying that this article definitely needs eyes on it for violations of WP:BLP. I'm no fan of Luzhkov, I find his comments and stance on gay rights in Russia (see also Moscow Pride) to be especially reprehensible, but as much as I find him reprehensible, I can't sit back and allow information that violates WP:BLP to be introduced into articles which puts the foundation in a precarious position. The only thing that the reference can be used for is the fact that Nemtsov was found guilty of libel and was ordered to pay compensation. The accusations of a politician of the self-declared opposition can in no way be used to state a fact in any article on Wikipedia, especially when there have been legal repercussions because of those accusations. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While article could use improvement, it has ample sourcing to show the notability of the topic. The topic itself is in no way POV, and POV is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2010 (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.