Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Poklonskaya

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.

Natalia Poklonskaya

Absolute classic

Keep, passes

WP:GNG as has been demonstrated in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Also meets
  WP:BASIC, significant coverage in reliable sources, expected to appear in a future GTA video game (even though I question the legality of Russian authorities in Crimea). Brandmeister^talk 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. Passes
  WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Richard Osman does not accept your definition of "independent state" - Crimea is quite clearly a region. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A British television presenter? So what? Crimea was a state (recognized by Russia) and is now a federal subject of the Russian Federation.
      And she is notable for multiple events: her assignment as the Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, viral photos, viral fan art, being put on the wanted list by Ukraine's security office, songs about her, being assigned the acting prosecutor general of the Russian federal subject, being promoted to senior counselor of justice, and multiple statements that became memes in Russia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because in Pointless, "Crimea" would score you 100 points. To be recognised in Pointless, a sovereign state has to be recognised by the UN. What do you think Richard does with his laptop? He checks Wikipedia! So, Wikipedia is the font of all pointless knowledge, but all pointless knowledge must be defined by pointless, and Crimea wasn't a sovereign member of the UN, even for a few days, so the wishful thinking of Putin and his cronies is irrelevant. More seriously, "regional prosecutor" is not a notable position. How do we
        WP:BLP1E. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • This is a political nomination. Thank you for demonstrating it clearly. I won't reply to you any more. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - prosecutors of large districts are usually notable enough per
  Cyrus Vance, Jr., David Soares, and James A. Murphy III). However, per Barney, it's not certain that she actually had or has any legitimate authority. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  She certainly had and has now.
  16 March: "New Crimea prosecutor brands EuroMaidan as 'coup'
  Now: "Russia: Simferopol sniper still at large - Crimean prosecutor".
  She is performing her work as the Attorney General of the Republic of Crimea and has all the authority. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HOTTIE. Andrew (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Carrite (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - Passes GNG, per Mr. Blanter. Bad nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - easily passes WP:GNG. She is a prominent figure in a serious international crisis. Look at the international media coverage... from Russia (Voice of Russia) to the US (Bloomberg) to the UK (BBC News) to China (Global Times) to Turkey (the National Turk). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per
  WP:GNG. —  dainomite   04:07, 2 April 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.