Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 January 19.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. renaming can be done at the article talk page, but consensus is clear for retention. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Call to Putin

Non-notable slang term. Article appears sourced, but all references describe only single case of police brutality, and it is not clear if the term "Phone Call to Putin" was used in any other cases. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable as a case taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and won by the victim. This is also a widely known name and method of torture in Russia, just like "elephant" and some others. Please see, for eaxmple, this Newsweek article: [1]. It tells "a torture method widely known as "a phone call to Putin." Biophys (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have basically confirmed my own opinion that it is the case Mikheyev v. Russia] which is notable, not the neologism. Newsweek may claim it is widely known as, but the facts within the Newsweek article still only relate to Mikheyev's case, which is the notable entity here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I have no doubt about the notability of the subject: 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- this article is not about Aleksey Mikheyev.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [2]DonaldDuck (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your search seems to establish the notability of the term. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that search is full of things such as: "In a phone call to Putin yesterday, Clinton reportedly mixed congratulations", "Bush placed a phone call to Putin", "But the phone call to Putin at a time when all Western capitals were expressing varying degrees of dismay", "Bush placed a 12 minute phone call to Putin", "The day after Bush's second phone call to Putin on June 5", "Ukrainian President Leonid D. Kuchma said in a phone call to Putin", "In a phone call to Putin last night, Sharon offered condolences". It does not establish notability. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that search give's notability to Bush's phone call to Putin more than it does to this example. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The article may be a little on the stubby side, but it has plenty of sources that indicate notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently sourced. If the title is inapt, change it - deletion is not the cure for that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep I trust User:Biophys about this, I think nominator is not familiar with Russia and should not be editing, let alone deleting Russian articles.travb (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, quite frankly you are way off based because DonaldDuck is Russian! --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Relisted and reopened at request. — neuro^(talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do a relist, it's only fair that you should mention the comments that were made between January 15 and today...

[list of votes in 3rd AfD redacted, 3rd AfD was out of process and most of the votes echoed only that] What was the basis for the request? Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That was a different deletion discussion entirely. I may notify the affected users later. — neuro^(talk) 16:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD has been relisted by Neuro at my request following comments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Phone_Call_to_Putin. This AfD had been closed early, but many non-keep comments were unforeseen. Now that it has been relisted, this AfD can run as long as may be needed to get thorough input. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep and close The last AFD was unanimous as is this one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it was unanimous, it wouldn't be at AfD in the first place, and it wouldn't have been taken to WP:DR and re-opened. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per all of the arguments above. There's clearly a consensus here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Strongly suggest nobody closes this one early, even if a slew of keeps come along, just to save on fallout. — neuro^(talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Phone Call to Putin is a non-notable neologism used to describe electric shocks given to a single person. It appears some editors in this AfD have misunderstood what the topic is about. WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The sources used in this article do not give significant coverage of Phone Call to Putin, but rather to Alexey Mikheyev, and mention Phone Call to Putin in passing; there is nothing more that can be said about this term past it being electric shock given by attaching electrodes to the ears, and that this is only recorded as being applied to a single person, Mikheyev. The term does not meet the basic notability guidelines, and would be best placed in an article on Alexey Mikheyev, and done so in passing as per the sources which discuss this notable individual. As this is an article on a neologism, it absolutely lacks the substantial details on the term itself, every single one the sources used in the article relate to Mikheyev's case, which the more I look at it, it isn't the person who is notable, but the case, Mikheyev v. Russia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well sourced and a likely search term; move (leaving a redirect) if people think that a different title is more appropriate. This concept has been subject of non-trivial independent coverage; it appears to be a shoo-in per WP:N unless I am completely misreading the sources. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article describes a well sourced torture technique and meets the notability criteria. The issue appears to be the article name, if this is the case then AfD is not the appropriate venue, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Martintg (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & move to Alexey Mikheyev as per DelRev nomination. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. The torture incident itself probably merits coverage somewhere else (Human rights in Russia? Mikheyev v. Russia?) --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Russian newspaper articles clearly say that this slang term is well known without any relation to Mikheyev incident. - 7-bubёn >t 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - changed my opinion. After more careful reading I see it is unclear whether this term is a commonly known expression or just an inside joke in this particular squad of the Russian police. - 7-bubёn >t 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide evidence/verification of this. Because of the sources in the article thus far relate to the overall Mikheyev v. Russia case. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rather strange request, I must say. You can read Russian, can't you? Okay: "на жаргоне оперативников это называется «звонок Путину»". Want more? Of course, I am pretty sure it was invented way before Putin, but it is not the reason for deletion, rather for renaming/merging into electric shock torture. - 7-bubёn >t 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is asking for verification a strange request? If one is going to make an assertion of notability, then one has to back it up with verifiable sources. OK, the cherry picked sentence fragment you have provided above is from Novaya Gazeta, in which is clearly says: Нижегородец Алексей Михеев подвез знакомую девушку. Вечером девушка не пришла домой, и Михеева арестовали. Пытали, как обычно, то есть так, как пытали индейцы захваченных в плен белых и как пытают чеченцы русских контрактников. В числе прочего вешали на мочки ушей электрические провода — на жаргоне оперативников это называется «звонок Путину». Михеев признался в убийстве и изнасиловании. Милиционеры устали, пошли попить чайку. Полумертвый Михеев выпрыгнул в окно с третьего этажа. Сломал позвоночник, навсегда стал инвалидом. Через четыре дня девушка вернулась домой, живая и здоровая. Алексей Михеев подал в Страсбургский суд." By reading that, it is clearly in regards to the court case, and it seems to be based on court papers submitted by Mikheyev himself. So your claim is still not backed up with sources. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are your speculations. The article clearly says "in the slang of police operatives it is called...". It does not say "Mikheyev alleges that in the slang of police it is called", and I have no reason to disbelieve that the reporter was misguided as to the meaning and the usage of the term. Anyway, I changed my vote, but for a different reason. - 7-bubёn >t 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my speculation. It is the fact. There's not a single source out there which uses the term outside of the Mikheyev case. And there is every reason to doubt anything that Latynina says. She is the Russian Ann Coulter, but on the other side of the nuttery spectrum. She makes all sorts of polemical statements and has nothing to back them up but her own hatred. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (would not mind a move) but would like to point out that whatever this article is, it is certainly not about a neologism. I'm open to good arguments for deletion but quoting WP:NEO to death is not going to do it and in fact I almost wonder if people quoting it realize how irrelevant that guideline is in the present case. "Phone call to Putin" is not fighting for a place into the next edition of Webster's. In any case, how about moving and redirecting to "zvonok Putinu"? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely about a neologism. I have a source from 1994 which documents torture by SLORC in Myanmar which includes: electric shocks applied to fingertips, toes, ear lobes, penis, or testicles. Or another source which documents abuse by the US with "Mr. Agiza was stripped naked and strapped to a wet mattress. Electrodes were then applied to his ear lobes..." Or this Amnesty source which states "Unai Romano...alleged...he was subjected to electric shocks to his ear-lobes..." If this article not documenting a non-notable neologism (none of the those sources above call it "Phone Call to Putin"), what exactly is it documenting? Also take note of this edit, in which a previously removed category was re-added into the article (and now removed again), that will likely indicate reasons for several of the keeps above, which don't seem to be concerned with getting it right, but POV-pushing. As to moving to "zvonok Putinu", that is just as non-notable as the English. I can find no English reference to the English neologism in the judgement of the HR court in Strasbourg. Also there are only 2 news sources which use the term in Russian - one being Latynina from Novaya Gazeta (why am I not surprised?). There are zero scholar sources, and 1 book source (which may or may not be on this term). --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Human rights in Russia. Per WP:NEO. Or/and other Police torture in modern Russia like articles. The article is fully referenced and this is an important subject. Phone Call to Putin can be made a sub chapter of a lager scoped article. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Torture in Russia is better. But it does not invalidate this article. So, keep.Biophys (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that there is no article on Torture in Russia in Wikipedia, given the extensive coverage of the topic, for example here, here and here. So I have created a redirect which could be expanded into an article in the future. Martintg (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am too surprised that Russavia calls this "non-notable neologism". Almost everyone in Russia knows this expression. Just to clarify, only this specific way of applying electric shock (to the head) is called "phone call to Putin". There are other ways of torture with electric shock in Russia. There is also a "Crucifixion of Christ" (as described in this Amnesty International report) and another method that is usually applied to women as described in this report: 23-year-old mother was detained by Russian federal forces in Ingushetia, blindfolded and routinely tortured for two weeks, including with electric shocks every day. "The electric wires were connected to the straps of her bra on her chest."Biophys (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Russia and I have never heard this expression prior to running into this wikipedia article while wikisurfing.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually do this Biophys, but I am calling a spade a shovel, and calling "bullshit" on your claim. Do you personally know almost everyone in Russia? Unless you are a CIA agent, and have access to mind-reading data on all Russians, how on earth could you know what almost all 142,008,838 Russians have or haven't heard of? But to explore this b/s a little further, what other Russian reliable sources, apart from Novaya Gazeta, have used this term? And remember, Novaya Gazeta has one of the lowest readership rates in Russian media (it is a fringe newspaper). Look at the figures from the National Circulation Service (also this); Argumenty i Fakty, 2,840,341. Izvestia, 371,000. Komsomolskaya Pravda, 729,897. Moskovsky Komsomolets, 1,215,000. Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 638,000. Trud, 375,000. Vedomosti, 239,000. Express Gazeta, 562,994. Novaya Gazeta, 171,060. N.G. has a lower country-wide readership than many regional newspapers from cities such as Ivanovo, Tolyatti, Tyumen, Ufa, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Rostov-on-Don, etc. For someone to even begin to make a WP:REDFLAG claim that almost everyone in Russia knows the expression, the term would have had to appear in at least one of the major Russian newspapers. Even then, to claim it is notable for WP, it has to be much more than what is currently in the sources. Others may trust you on this, but b/s clearly needs to be called out. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Russia and I've never heard of this "term" before reading this article. Moreover, quick google search doesn't seem to return any relevant sources. ellol (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. Sources document only one case of use. Not enough to deserve a whole article. Offliner (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Mikheyev v. Russia, with the article focused on the case. Reason: lack of sources. The "method" is only reported in relation to a single case. While journalists Nemtsova and Latynina reported the method to be widely known they did not provide at least any different case when this "method" would be used. Knowing certain "yellowishness" of these journalists, sources are insignificant. ellol (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as a neologism. This needs more time to become notable. Wikipedia isn't the newspaper. Themfromspace (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Phone Call to Putin is a non-notable neologism.FeelSunny (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mikheyev v. Russia with a redirect from Phone Call to Putin. Yes, it's a neologism, but most of the sources (Newsweek, United Press International, Radio Free Europe) use the phrase, so it's notable enough for a redirect. The article, however, belongs at the case name. Horologium (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to wherever). The article establishes notability of the term based on its being mentioned in passing in relation to one and only one case. If the keep proponents are so convinced that this term is beyond being a "non-notable neologism", why in the world have such a hard time providing references which tie the term to something other than Mikheyev's case? The term is "widely known" in Russia and is mentioned by numerous independent sources? Give me two (2!) such sources, and as long as they are reliable and don't reference back to Mikheyev's case like every single other source mentioned here, I'll change my vote to "keep" ("strong keep" if you give me three). Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:29, January 21, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral comment So far, my take is, this is beginning to sound like a topic which, in English, in English-language news sources, could have some notability but, in Russia it may be less notable, or not at all. Given notability on en.Wikipedia is overwhelmingly driven by coverage in English-language sources, maybe this makes one wonder, would a seeming lack of notability on ru.wikipedia have sway on the thinking of editors commenting at en.Wikipedia as to a very Russian topic which may not be notable in Russia but could be elsewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your believe in good faith, but I've encountered most voters in this AFD somewhere else on Wikipedia before and I recognise the voting patterns... It seems that some Russian wikipedians can't bare critisism of Russia so they will whitewash articles like Phone Call to Putin instead of creating articles like Torture in Russia. Maybe AFD's should only be decided by administrators in the future... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in Russia know this expression. It is far more notable there. But the corresponding article in Russian WP was indeed deleted, just as every other material critical of Putin.Biophys (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Most people in Russia know this expression." is an unsorsed claim intended to promote an opinion, in other words, a lie. You contradict to multiple native Russian users, including me, that say none of them or their friends heard this term b4 reading the source. I, personally, thought (judging by the name) it was some article about Bush calling to Putin on some business before I opened the article.FeelSunny (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How I wish that would have surprised me... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't including me in that Mariah-Yulia. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the other people in this AfD who have simply expressed a delete opinion would agree that Mikheyev v. Russia is a valid article and it should probably be detailed within that somewhat. It has nothing to do with whitewashing, but providing balance and having that balance in the right places. And notice how Biophys has again said that most people in Russia know the expression, but he has totally ignored where I have called him on such rubbish; unfortunately there's a history there of him ignoring questions and sidestepping issues such as these. If a large percentage of people in Russia couldn't name GWB at the Prez of the US, how the hell would they have heard of this fringe term used in a newspaper which has an extremely low readership level written by a yellow journalist. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although an article named Torture in Russia should cover a lot more. Grey Fox (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the delete votes focus on the fact that the coverage using the term seems to focus on this one case. That us why moving the article to the case name with the term as a redirect is appropriate. The redirect from Torture in Russia makes less sense since all of the reliable sources discussing the term focus on the Mikheyev case, rather than the more general topic. Redirects are cheap, but they should be used judiciously. Horologium (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wiki deserves an article called Torture in Russia which covers a lot more than just a single case. According to pretty much every human rights group, torture in Russia is widespread. Grey Fox (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Lots of problems but RS claim: ", a torture method widely known as 'a phone call to Putin.'" I'm good. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Human rights in Russia. Per WP:NEO it is a non-notable neologism so it is not notable for an article. We do not have an article for Palestinian hanging as that article is also a not notable neologism and it is redirected to Strappado. Phone Call to Putin is even less notable than Palestinian hanging as the term "Palestinian hanging" has been used to a great degree by human rights organizations such as HRW and the Netherlands institute for Human Rights. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I live in Russia most of my life and never heard of such expression. I guess I am ready to hear in reply something like "dude, you have never been tortured by Russian police or FSB, that's why you don't know this expression" :). If one person mentions it at a court hearing, it doesn't mean this torture method exists or is used at all. KNewman (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, cited sources (including Yulia Latynina) tell this is a very widely used method that even has a name.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned before (you must have missed my comment above)—if this is such a "very widely used method... [with] a name", why not support it with numerous sources that are not tied to the Mikheyev's case? You surely can't undermine your argument if you do that, and since the method is so widely used and known, it should be no trouble at all for you to find the said sources? Why beating around the bush and going in circles? I'd personally love to have this article to stay, but I just can't justify it with what meager support has been provided so far. Indeed, sourcing plain vanilla "Bush's phone call to Putin" is easier than this allegedly famous torture method!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, January 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment It should be noted that the court case (which would be notable for an article) had the torture of Mikheyev not found as fact but alleged. Whilst the Court may have found that he probably was tortured, the court judgement itself states that the torture was "alleged". And still not a single source of the usage of this term, outside of this case, has yet been found. I can find no mention of this term in other documents filed with the court, etc, such as this (word document) which mention the term. It would appear to have been a concoction of Novaya Gazeta, or other such media outlet. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds stange: the defendant won the case, and Russia was required to pay a compensation ordered by the court. Other than that, we can see here a group of Russian users who all (except me) support deletion. I guess the problem is not the torture, but the name of Putin. This is all very personal in Russian politics. Saakashvilli called Putin a "LilliPutean" and made a personal enemy.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, and Lavrov called Saakashvili a fucking lunatic. Let's build an article based around that term, no? Or perhaps Tie eater? It has nothing to do with the term, it has to do with the simple fact that ALL sources point to a single case, and not a single person has been able to show otherwise. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem we discuss here is not the torture. It's the term itself, that was not known to any other Russian user but you. Don't you find it strange others don't know the term Novaya Gazeta says is known to everyone? Or do you think we are all members of a "Web brigades"? (another "perfect" article you've created). BTW, never thought you are a Russian national. So you emigrated to the US after the term became "so popular" in Russia? Or were you told it is by some informed US sources? Or you mean you're an ethnic Russian?

See, there is one important thing: we may like or not like Putin. I personally is not a fan of this man by no means. But most of us here just love Russia itself, and it makes - me personally - feel sad when I see a huge base POV against Russia of the English WP just b/c Russia sells oil and not buys it, like the West.FeelSunny (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply ridiculous. This expression was described by a Russian journalist, Yulia Latynina as something widely known in Russia. She is right. Indeed, I knew this expression even before her report, although I currently live in US. It is enough to read Russian press. There is nothing patriotic in denying torchure in your country, no matter if this is Russia, US, or China.Biophys (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, do we trust the word of a number of anonymous Russian nationalist Wikipedians or the published word of an accredited Russian journalist? The answer WP:RS and WP:V require us to trust what Yulia Latynina has said in print over what FeelSunny, Offliner, KNewman or Russavia may say. AfD is not a vote, regardless of how many Russian nationalists pile on in this discussion. Martintg (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 13 "keep", 9 "delete" and 3 "merge/move". "Merge" suggestions do not belong to AfD and should be discussed separately.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to differentiate between "merge" and "move". My suggestion to move doesn't equate to the same thing as any of the merges proposed, and in fact is essentially a "keep". Horologium (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a WP:VOTE Biophys. Martintg, who do we believe? I say we believe WP:RS. It has now been asked now no less than 4 occasions by different editors to demonstrate this terms usage outside of the yellow press Novaya Gazeta, and show some mainstream usage in Russian media, particularly in some of the larger media outlets such as KP, Trud, AiF, etc. The only thing we have so far is User:SemBubenny provide a source which only backed up what I have said all along; it has only ever been used in the case of one person. And it has nothing to do with denying of torture in Russia; torture occurs in every country on the planet, and anyone who would deny that is a nutcase. Everything we have said is within the confines of policy, guidelines and attempting to build an encyclopaedia. So Biophys says it is simply ridiculous, well let me say that is insanely ridiculous to build an article about a notable subject based upon a term which ALL evidence points to only ever being used in relation to that case. It would be like building an article on George W. Bush around the term Miserable failure, or Tony Blair at Bush's poodle (which one should note is a deleted redirect, although there are 10,000s sources for that term). Or it is like building a pyramid not from its base, but from its tip. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear consensus, it is a notable and well referenced article. Ostap 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced and clearly notable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as yellow press neologism, not so widely known as claimed here, and definitely not widely used in English language as meager 100 Google hits show with practically all of them citing the Newsweek or Wikipedia. Torture of Mikheev is already described in the other article, so there is no need to merge. I have to admit that this Afd was brought to my attention by Offliner, so I am not sure if my vote will be counted. I would appreciate if the people who voted keep would also admit if they were asked to participate here. (Igny (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I have just realized that there is no article on Mikheyev or his torture case, which are just redirects to this article. This case of torture is apparently well documented and notable. So I change my opinion to rename and rewrite. (Igny (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Merge. Currently it's a WP:COATRACK article, not about the method as such, but about the specific case where it was documented. If there's nothing more to be said about the method than that it happened in that case (see lead sentence: ... is a Russian neologism for a torture method allegedly used by Russian police to extract a confession out of Alexey Mikheye), it can easily be integrated in an article either about that person (if he's notable), or about the court case (which definitely is), or a wider "human rights in Russia"-style overview article. Notability and coverage of the term as such has not been demonstrated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. According to multiple sources this is general and wide spread method of torture, the Mikheev is only a high-profile case. Someone modified the text to distort what the sources tell. Biophys (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Warrington (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Alexey Mikheyev and develop it into an article/stub. I am more than skeptical with regard to the present title, its contents and notability. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and move. WP is not a dictionary of fascinating phrases, but this article does appear to start to document noteworthy events. We read that [Mikheyev's] case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France and became notable as "the first serious victory in a case of torture" brought to the Court against Russian government. Clarification, please. For one thing, what is a "serious victory"? Oh, sure, I can guess that this is the direct quotation of second-language or careless writing or machine or otherwise dubious translation of something like "significant victory", but I am not going to polish the English for such a serious matter on the strength of mere guesswork and I hope that nobody else does either. (Indeed, I'd wonder how some previous "victory in a case of torture" might not be significant.) Based on reliable sources (in whatever language), who is/was Mikheyev and what was his case? Rewrite this article more informatively, and move the result to Alexey Mikheyev over the redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2009 (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.