Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aram Grigoryan
Source: 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. J04n(talk page) 16:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aram Grigoryan
- Aram Grigoryan (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)
Subject does not pass
WP:POLITICIAN. A redirect of the page may be appropriate, but does not meet requirements for a stand alone article. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is neither an elected local official nor an unelected candidate for political office, so the deletion rationale offered is inapplicable. The part of ]
- Comment - Thank you for the rationale. I am not sure how to interpret his position, I am only going on you saying that he passes WP:RS that establish his notability. Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- Thank you again. The footnote to the section you cite, Section 1 under WP:POLITICIAN, states that holding office is a secondary criterion and that "people who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion," but doesn't state that they always satisfy the primary criterion. Unfortunately, this person does NOT satisfy the primary criterion of having multiple, significant, and reliable sources. There is nothing in there that states they are inherently notable. In fact, the footnote is clear that it is a secondary criterion.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either the primary or the secondary criterion can be used to demonstrate notability, as is made perfectly clear by the final sentence of that footnote. ]
- I am not sure that it is "perfectly clear." It states, "However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." This is an "ignore all rules" type policy that is set out to make sure that Wikipedia lists those who have held major political offices, regardless of them receiving significant coverage. As implied by both of the keep votes at this point, I do not think anyone would consider the office that he holds as a major office and therefore the secondary criterion would not apply. If so, we could list anyone who has ever been in a "political office" in any country in the world. Also, I feel that if his political office was a major one, there would be an article here in Wikipedia listing such or some significant coverage about the position. Again, as it is not a major political office, second criterion would not apply and significant coverage would be needed. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A government minister in the effective government of a de facto independent country is a major political office by any reasonable definition, including the definition in ]
- I think under any definition, a "major office" includes individuals who create and shape policy for a nation or a subnational government. This is how I interpret the intent of WP:POLITICIAN. The guideline does not state that all elected officials should have a page on Wikipedia, and the guidelines exclude local elected officials. Enos733 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think under any definition, a "major office" includes individuals who create and shape policy for a nation or a subnational government. This is how I interpret the intent of
- A government minister in the effective government of a de facto independent country is a major political office by any reasonable definition, including the definition in ]
- I am not sure that it is "perfectly clear." It states, "However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." This is an "ignore all rules" type policy that is set out to make sure that Wikipedia lists those who have held major political offices, regardless of them receiving significant coverage. As implied by both of the keep votes at this point, I do not think anyone would consider the office that he holds as a major office and therefore the secondary criterion would not apply. If so, we could list anyone who has ever been in a "political office" in any country in the world. Also, I feel that if his political office was a major one, there would be an article here in Wikipedia listing such or some significant coverage about the position. Again, as it is not a major political office, second criterion would not apply and significant coverage would be needed. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again. The footnote to the section you cite, Section 1 under
- Comment - Thank you for the rationale. I am not sure how to interpret his position, I am only going on you saying that he passes
- Keep. The subject is (was) an elected member of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is only recognized by four other nations, though. Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would pose the same question to you as well. Can you point to the WP:RS or are we to just assume that he is/was an elected member of the national assembly based on a brief mention as opposed to significant coverage in reliable sources? Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage is not required for verification of facts, such as Grigoryan's ministerial position. All that is required is a reliable source, which we have. ]
- Comment - I would pose the same question to you as well. Can you point to the
- Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN in any event, and there is a strong presumption that significant coverage exists in reliable sources published in languages other than English. No substantive reason to distrust the existing source has been offered. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think a former deputy minister of health and a present MP of an unrecognized state is really notable for a stand alone article. Grandmaster 17:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- State legislators in Wyoming are accepted without question as notable per ]
- Keep. Deputy ministers are notable, whether of fully recognised states or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does the minister have an article? I couldn't find one and it seems rather odd that a deputy minister gets to have an article, but not the minister. I'm leaning towards "delete" at this point. George Spurlin (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The minister certainly should have an article, but if it hasn't been created yet that is not a reason to delete an article about the deputy minister. Wikipedia is far from complete. ]
- Keep It is clear that members of the Nagorno-Karabakh assembly are notable. The article needs to be rewritten, but the person is clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Phil Bridger. He is definitely a notable figure due to his service as a minister of a significant self-autonomous republic. Anyhow, I am in the process of improving the article as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2013 (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.