Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putin khuilo!

Add links
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. This AFD became an absolute MESS due to sockpuppetry - which, by the way, usually has the OPPOSITE effect that one wants in AFD's. However, some very policy-wise people from across the project have identified areas where this does seem to meet our notability. the panda ₯’ 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putin khuilo![edit]

Putin khuilo! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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: 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.
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]
The fact that you claim to be ukrainian is irrelevant here. His argument is false since the "incident" at the embassy was about this song. There would be no such outcry if not for the song that our acting foreign minister sang at this event.--vityok (talk) 11:34, 18 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]
    — DimaV83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    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)
    — Arxcaeli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    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]
    — MelVic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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]
    — Iomark04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    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".

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

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

  • — 92.49.208.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    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]
  • But it just a single video of a single performance. There a lot of other recordings. This is yet another proof that this song is popular and gains its popularity with every coming day. There are plenty of articles devoted to single songs from some band album. Why is this one different?--vityok (talk) 11:37, 18 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]
  • Weak 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]

*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)- In light of recent changes and further insite, I have changed my opinion on the matter to KEEP . I didn't feel this was a WP:ONEEVENT even before but the notability issues and the !vote stacking was questionable. This seems to have worked it self out and notability has been established.[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]
  • 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]
  • Indeed, this place is NOTNEWS, but it can cover notable events that are presently in the news. I don't presently have an opinion either way, but as a note, I think, from what I've read about this article that the relevant criterion is WP:N(E) or WP:NSONG. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:20, 18 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]
    • You mean the online dictionary which anyone can edit, and whose entries are kept on the basis of popular vote? How does that count as a reliable source establishing notability? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:32, 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, just one recent example from Washington Post [5]. It also has an entry in the Urban dictionary [6]. Närking (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable: (1) political context; (2) widespread popularity of this meme. There is a number of cover versions on Youtube. Currently search on Youtube for "Putin huilo" returns ~2000 results -- CaptSolo (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now This song seems to have caused a diplomatic incident. Due to the Foreign Minister singing it to stave off an angry crowd, the incident is actually very notable (a diplomatic crisis), even if the song is crass and not exactly a cleverly written poem. If you wanted to turn this into "Putin Khuilo diplomatic incident" that would be a compromise I would be willing to support. If it turns out that Putin Khuilo is the Ukrainian version of "All we are saying is give peace a chance" / "Make love, not war" then we would be silly to delete reference to it altogether, but for now it seems to be a fairly new chant that is definitely making a lot of news. Is there an article about Chants and slogans related to Ukranian and Russian conflict, akin to List of Maoist China rhetoric and political slogans. Also, it might be informative for people to read the WP:RECENT essay and understand how wikipedia incorporates fast-moving news stories. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident was actually not so much the minister chanting, but the massive crowd attack of the Russian Embassy in Kiev. The minister claimed later that he chanted it since it was the only way to disperse the crown (which the blocked sockpuppeteer who created the article forgot to add). If it is moved to Attack of the Russian Embassy in Kiev it would in my opinion better claims of notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There shouldn't be any misperception that this is the Ukrainian version of "All we are saying is give peace a chance". This is intentionally the nastiest thing that people can imagine saying in Russian (and I assume in Ukrainian as well); and this in a culture that has a special place in its heart and history for foul language (mat). That said, I cannot blame Ukrainians fro saying this to Putin - how else to get the point across that they are sick of Russian domination, and invasions (by proxy or otherwise)? To repeat this is really nasty stuff. The only thing that was remotely close was Pussy Riot - at the time I was thinking "How could they possibly put this on TV/Radio?" Well they have and we've gotten used to it, and they made their point by being intentionally shocking with their language. This wording however is about 10 times as shocking. Go by reliable sources and notability is all I can say. It seems right up there if not just over that point right now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as received international media coverage in many countries, and has been featured in The Independent [7]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read the whole debate and even though that I am Russian, I vote keep per the other keeps due to its notability and a plethora of reliable sources.--Mishae (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The context of the article might be offensive to some nationalistic groups, but, we are brothers here, right? So why does user @Jack User: calls English Wikipedia, fake history? I personally see Russian Wikipedia as a Stalinist propaganda wiki but I know that Wikipedia content can be objectionable and therefore I tend to ignore it. Also, I need to point out that @Ymblanter: shouldn't dictate the Russian Wikipedia rules here, and judge who have how many edit counts. Every Wikipedia is different, including this one. For anyone who doesn't know, he used to be registered in the Russian Wikipedia but decided to live it.--Mishae (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attack on User:Ymblanter is called for here. He is a valued member of this community. Rules here about SPAs and new accounts apply here as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it is discrimination. SO valued user may not be attacked, and not value may be attacked? It is wrong, I think.--Anatoliy (Talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No body is personally attacking anyone, I just pointed out the facts, that he used to be in the Russian Wikipedia, and that they use opposite-to-us tactics there when it comes to deletion discussion. I.e, in Russian Wikipedia majority of the articles get deleted because no one issues against. My opinion is that he is trying to do it here, that's why Jack User calls English Wikipedia fake history (with which I disagree). Maybe I should have putted it in different context?--Mishae (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I may have over-reacted. I'll just stress that I know him as a good guy and that he knows our rules very well. It's probably important to understand that Russians could be easily offended by this article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its fine. I personally don't feel offended, but then we need to consider WP:UNDUE if the minority here feels threatened. But in the current state, its just a farce of debate. Wikipedia is not a place for censorship, and this article is discussed as weather its hurtful or not rather then is it notable enough.--Mishae (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sufficient notability. It's similar to Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. --MrGALL (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a phenomenon and meme that started off as a Ukrainian local phenomenon, but as a result of the embassy incident got international attention, which justifies a separate article, also because often international journalists lack knowledge on the cultural context and history. Also compare the other 10 linguistic versions. -- Muumi (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The meme is widely spread, it regularly appears in news for some months, and has already become one of the more important symbols of Euromaidan. No doubt it will be remembered and eventually analyzed not only in news but also discussed in sufficient depth in literature devoted to the history of Euromaidan. Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously notable by now. Max Semenik (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is asserted. There are many such articles, just look at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. § DDima 23:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is currently notable, and relevant to the current political events. It is mentioned in the news and other sources many times. Yurivict (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song has been sung by millions of Ukrainians (without exaggeration) and even by official persons of Ukrainian government. Utilmind (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is unfortunate, that street slang is going mainstream, but that is the reality. I think wikipedia has to present reality and not some "improved" version of it. User:Abune (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I propose a name change for this article to Putin Hello! This article should be about the song being played in the media, and the title is "Putin Hello!" The exact meaning of the double entendre can be explained in the article. USchick (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's weird. They delete articles about large companies, rivers, bridges, as irrelevant, but keep this strange stuff. This chant contains just 2 words (one of them is pretty bad, by the way), it is not widespread (except for Ukrainian football fans), and has no significance. Which is even more important, this article is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT.--Barsoff (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is not one event, it has been in the football stadiums since March and recently became more widespread because of the embassy incident -- Muumi (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if it has no significance, why is it being covered by the international news media? USchick (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is notable, attracted much attention internationally, appears in Urban dictionary and other sources, sang by mariachi band and others, caused the Ukrainian-Russian diplomatic conflict recently, etc. In other words, it is highly significant, the wiki user have rights to know about it, and so the article fully justified Valizka (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sung by a mariachi band? Well, that certainly settles the notability argument once and for all, now, doesn't it? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is fairly well known and covered in international press. This image, for example, does not seem to be from Ukraine: https://twitter.com/Nepareizais/status/479173684888756224/photo/1 --Richlv (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this AfD is still ongoing, I think we should invite our WikiProject Ukraine experts such @Lvivske:, @Yulia Romero: and @Aleksandr Grigoryev: to weigh in on the issue regarding this chant/song and their country's history. Considering that Yulia is friends with @USchick: she is more then welcome to comment on this AfD! --Mishae (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the invitation, I have already commented. For full disclosure, I have not been in contact with User:Yulia Romero in a long time to prevent any collusion on our part, even though I do consider him as a good reliable friend. Privet Yulia Romero! USchick (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS @Mishae: and there I is + thanks for calling me "WikiProject Ukraine expert". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It barley passes Wikipedia:N; but I have seen articles about a lot less interesting things. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as much as I wanted to 'delete' to spite the socks/nationalists this chant does appear notable. GiantSnowman 18:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge w/Deshchytsia article. I want to thank Mishae for inviting me to the discussion as it became a sincere surprise to me find so much support for the article. However as Yulia Romero pointed out, the article barely passes wikipedia notability. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Giant Snowman said. DeCausa (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by analogy with ¿Por qué no te callas?. It's definitely a thing of its own, with coverage etc. -- Y not? 13:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is much more than just a song or a chant, more than just one event - its use is ongoing and spreading like a wildfire as we speak. What about the Deshchica incident at the Russian embassy in Kiev? The FM of a country says this saying and is dismissed from his post! (as I hear). Not related to football, right? -- This is becoming a global phenomenon - people post this on social networks, take photos of themselves holding this slogan. A guy was arrested in Moscow a week ago for holding up the slogan with just one word "huilo" for "insulting the President". -- And it is very notable, because in Russian to address to President the insult in mat is unheard of - and this one is done openly, on massive scale. First time in history. -- WillNess (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Integrate whatever's usable in this article to that one. This is close to meeting notability standards, but not quite there. At some point, if the situation changes, the article can spring back to life. By the way, the nationalist socking is annoying. Coretheapple (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Changing to Keep as new sources have been added that push this over the edge into notability-land. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep finally getting off the fence. The google translate version of a La Stampa story finally did it for me. The foreign minister was sacked for saying it. Boy, some folks just can't take a little constructive criticism. I suppose this will go down in history along with the Baltic Republics having their Singing Revolution and Ukraine now has its own version. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It might turn out to be just a flash in the pan of no lasting significance, but it seems at least as notable as, say, Janet Jackson's nipple. But historical significance is rarely clear at the time; it could turn out to be as significant as We will bury you. I found the article via mainstream news and came to WP for more background on the subject (specifically, a nuanced translation of хуйло). The decision is only between a dedicated article, and a section in another one. Personally I think there's enough material to justify a dedicated article, and thus oppose deletion, but it's not far over the line; I wouldn't be horribly upset if it got merged elsewhere. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So obviously not a ONEEVENT and it easily passes VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY. This is so clearly an ongoing story with multiple occurrences, reported in multiple countries, and that resulted in a diplomatic incident. There are at least three high quality mainstream journalistic reliable sources—The Guardian, Washington Post, and Le Monde, from the UK, US, and France—that are independent and cover the story with significant depth. — Becksguy (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned previously not a ONEEVENT and it passes VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY, since self-proclaimed Russian "republics" and "Russian spring", which were first followed by no one now did make it into history. As of today, Putin has made no proof he is not a "kuhuilo", furthermore, Kremlin media oficially have clarified, that the song does not concern all the Russians of same name, but only V.V.Putin [8]Xobbitua (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is ample evidence that it passes WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY and it is not WP:ONEEVENT. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not every protest song is notable - this one is sort of run of the mill, from what I can see, beside the nasty tone. FWIW, I agree with the sentiment of the song if not its words - or its alleged notability. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The question is not whether we think the phrase is offensive or not, or our political sympathies, or whether this article is interesting or not, but whether this subject passes GNG as the subject of multiple pieces of substantial, independently published coverage in sources of presumed reliability. This does. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very popular and well-known international phenomenon. --A1 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putin_khuilo!&oldid=1142237220"