Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia

• Either keep or delete collectively. A missile strike against a residential building murdering 17 civilians and injuring over 60 others should sound like a highly notable event worth an article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, because the fascist Russian state has been targeting civilians indiscriminately in a disgusting effort to break their will to resist, these have indeed become routine. But this article is no less notable than many that have already had an article for some time, such as 2024 Donetsk attack, 2024 Pokrovsk missile strike or August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike, just to name a few. We should either keep them all or delete them all. We need a centralized discussion to decide what do we do with these articles and establish a threshold of notability. By deleting one article every few months while three other similar articles have been written we do not go anywhere. Super Ψ Dro 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a number of articles about similar russian airstrikes against civilians in Ukraine, with more or less casualties: April 2023 Sloviansk airstrike, 2023 Uman missile strike, Kharkiv dormitories missile strike and many more. --Lystopad (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we can decide whether this fails
  WP:NEVENT after the war is over. But for now, I see no reason why it should be deleted; every Russian warcrime is notable enough for an article. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Although there's missile strikes being launched into Ukraine consistently, this one missile strike produced a significant casualty count compared to the others. Due to that, I see it as a notable event that is significant enough to have it's own article. Nintenga (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep similarly as the August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike--Noel baran (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Start larger discussion The only thing that makes this stand out from the dozens of other articles about similar airstrikes is that this comes at a time when Ukraine is running criticially low on air defense missiles, and it probably has a higher than average number of casualties. As Super Dro said, it would be good to start a more centralized discussion about these articles rather than just make a decision for one of them every few months. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Nintenga and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We also have articles for other terror attacks across Europe, such as Hanau shootings or 2016 Berlin truck attack, where less people were killed. User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article."

  @

  WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Ecrusized (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Keep. Many casualties, has significant coverage in various reliable sources. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources except for routine news coverage. To address some of the keep arguments:
  1. A number of people were killed –
     WP:NEVENTS
     .
  2. Similar articles exist or they should all be discussed together –
     That doesn't mean this should be kept
     . The notability of this article has to stand on its own, and there's no guarantee that those article are about notable subjects.
  3. It's bad, a war crime, or a terrorist attack –
     WP:SOAPBOXing
     , which is a conduct issue and should result in a warning.
  4. Its notability can be determined later – Then it can have an article later. We don't create articles about things that
     might be notable in the future
     .
  5. It's covered in reliable sources –
     WP:PERSISTENCE
     require that coverage continue beyond the news cycle.

I'm hoping that the closer will consider whether these keep !votes are valid, and I suggest that editors be reminded about

WP:ATA when they use arguments that are listed there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The keep votes are valid. Many similar articles indicate consensus.

Its notability is already established.

It is not a routine coverage cause it's a not routine event. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see it as that this article wins all the Wikipedia:Notability-points. I am also puzzled why this article is up for deletion when all these US high school Wikipedia articles exist of schools whom are neither notable nor special. I can not understand why somebody would think that Gilbert High School of Arizona has a bigger impact than this horrible attack on innocent people in Chernihiv. Not that I am advocating that there are too many Wikipedia articles about US high schools, I am saying that it is better to have too many articles (on Wikipedia) then too few. I also think that nobody should become used or in any way or "administrative" the death of innocent people by bombing in any war or conflict everywhere. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES

:

Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of

organizations

.

I don't know whether that specific school is notable or not, but this is generally why there is a lot of articles about schools where there otherwise wouldn't be. Presumably, AfD discussions would delete some/most of these schools, but if there's no reason for an AfD, many of them will remain MarkiPoli (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no indication of notability for this article. Russia has been indiscriminately striking civilians for a long while now, so one of these airstrikes is not independently notable. Like Thebiguglyalien said, many of the !keep votes include obvious
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, even one of them citing a US high school having an article as the reason why this should be kept. In addition, being a terrorist strike does not make it notable. There have been countless bombings in war zones that don’t have articles. Cutlass^Ciera 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Leaning keep or merge to a list article on comparable strikes in the conflict. I came here to close the discussion, but I find many of the "keep" !votes are poorly articulated in policy. Nonetheless, the article contains sources providing substantial coverage for the event, sufficient to meet the
  WP:GNG, and I don't know how coverage of an airstrike killing a dozen and a half civilians can be considered "routine". BD2412 T 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources per WP:GNG would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see this article passing the

WP:TENYEARTEST. Number of casualties, while tragic, does not indicate this attack being more notable, and nothing indicates this airstrike is anything special aside from lack of defense missiles. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Notable event covered by many news sources. Does not fail
  WP:NEVENT. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Another attack in the ongoing conflict, I don't see this as notable. Sadly, these events happen almost daily now. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Keep but if it's merged, a good place would be Chernihiv strikes (2022–present). Niafied (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina

Ekaterina Zaikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Absolutely fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Georgia (country), and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject definitely fails WP:NSKATE and I am struggling to find any coverage at all. For reference, the Cyrillic script transliteration of her name seems to be Екатерина Заикина. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The crash catches my attention because it it doesn't sound like a "normal" accident. To me it sounds the plane was shot out of the sky or blown up either accidentally or on purpose. Anyway, both ways, that would make it plausible that Russia tries to cover it up. Due to the contoversies and because I think it would be a shame if this information would be lost, I vote Weak keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the plane were shot down, then the accident doesn't exactly warrant an article as it has already been mentioned in: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of Russian military accidents.

  Even then, the fact that there hasn't been any news related to this accident since 2022 already fails, as I've said,

  WP:SUSTAINED

  .

  The event fails

  WP:DIVERSE as most sources were covered by russian media outlets and didn't receive significant or in-depth coverage to be considered notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And the argument on losing the information is pretty weak per

  WP:LOSE as this article already fails multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  In that case, instead of deleting: merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian aircraft losses might be the best option. I would propose stating there (including removing the current "cashed" typo):

  Registration number RF-36074 crashed in Uryv-Pokrovka, Voronezh Oblast. The aircraft exploded in the air and fell between three villages. Fragments of the wreck scattered of over a large area.^[1] According to the Ministry of Defense, the preliminary cause was equipment failure.^[2] According to eyewitnesses the cause was possibly a shell hit.^[3] All of the undisclosed number of occupants were killed, consisting of crew members and paratroopers.^[3] Usually this type of aircraft has six crew members.^[1]

  82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like, judging from other entries in the article, that we should follow the same style therefore I would suggest keeping the entry as it is:

  
  

  Registration number RF-36074 cashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Allegedly caused by a technical malfunction. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a non-established style should never be regarded as more important than the quality of the prose or an inhibition of content. Note the current Russian state owned

  Tass source has an interest and might be unreliable. The sources I use are more journalistic and not one-sided. (And what I said, don’t keep the typo :) ) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The information is already there and it needs to be kept simple. I do agree with replacing the typo. I'm suggesting the following:

  
  

  Registration RF-36074 crashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Preliminary reports indicate a technical malfunction.

  Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to improve the article with these edits. I expanded the article (among others witnesses reports, noted there were paratroopers onboard and the number of crew members) and added an extra source. However, this was reverted by Lachielmao (talk · contribs). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify I had no issue with the new content and sources added, but there was speculation used without a source as well as rewriting sections with worse grammar and writing prose. Lachielmao (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lachielmao: I don't understand why you say I added speculations without a source. See here the version after I expanded it. Everything was well referenced. (Bye the way, it sounds ambiguous when you're saying "I had no issue with the new content and sources added" because you removed it.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be preferable if you discussed this on the talk page instead of this page as this is a discussion on whether to keep or delete the article, not to talk about whether or not these edits should be included. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As per nom, this fails
  WP:SUSTAINED, and this crash doesn't seem to be any more notable than the many Russian aircraft crashes listed in the List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War that don't have their own article, so we should just merge the basic information about the crash there. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Burtasova

Anna Burtasova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Sources of dubious quality"? They are all from FIDE, the ultimate
  reliable source for chess. PamD 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Not dubious in the sense that they are unreliable, but they just do not establish notability. They are largely collections of statistics, and not articles about the person. None of the FIDE sources show significant coverage, which, as stated for the notability of sportspeople: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." This does not meet that, and I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this person. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No
  WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG. The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created. That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD. I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No SIGCOV. Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Burtasova does hold the title of
  WP:GNG. I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Subject meets
  chess grandmaster, and has contributed to the development of chess in Canada.^[1] -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]