Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Natalia Poklonskaya (2nd Nomination)

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 (original close "SNOW kept... again"). There is a clear consensus among participants that this meets the GNG and is not a BLP1E concern. While some of the people in favor of keeping this are involved in the article, either in its writing or in the DYK nomination, but there are also a large number of uninvolved participants saying that this meets the GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Natalia Poklonskaya

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

WP:BLP1E, and even that event's disputed. Laun chba ller 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep - You joking right?..— Stemoc ( talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep - WP:BLP1E isn't at all applicable. She is the Prosecutor-General of the new Republic of Crimea, and has been participating in the suppression of the Crimean Tatars, among other things. She is certainly notable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep I think your are referring to the press conference Poklonskaya gave and her ensuing meme status when you mentioned BLP1E. However, she is a Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Crimea, so she clearly meets notability requirements. Overall, this is a nomination of a clearly notable article, so a speedy keep is appropriate. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep. First of all, it's not a WP:BLP1E cause she is notable for multiple events that are already discussed in the article. Second, she passes WP:GNG easily cause there have been many, many publications in reliable sources dedicated to her personally and discussing her career in detail. Third, as noted in the previous deletion discussion, she is the Prosecutor General of a large region and a self-declared independent state and therefore is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. By the way, it was snow kept the previous time. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 16:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep per WP:CSK #2c. This was kept a month ago, and no basis has been identified for revisiting the question so rapidly. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep per the above; this is a clearly notable person. bd2412 T 18:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. Closing admins should take note of the fact that this article is incompatible with WP:BLP1E and the keep arguments boil down to WP:HOTTIE, which isn't policy. I note previous nomination was closed without taking this into consideration. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Finally, some sense. If Poklonskaya is so blatantly notable, how come no clear consensus has emerged at Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya yet? Barney, your final point is one for WP:DRV. And anyway, I use Twinkle, so I don't even notice where the nomination is put.-- Laun chba ller 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Well my thoughts are that this article is destined to be deleted, but it's a matter of when. The longer it's left the further it is away from the WP:1E of WP:BLP1E, and the more apparent the WP:BLP1E status is as people realise the complete lack of coverage subsequent to her 15 minutes of fame. Finally, the original author of this seems intent on promoting Russian nationalism to the point where the Russians authorities can do nothing wrong. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Launchballer, the DYKN is inching towards not featuring the article on the front page not because of notability, but because of editorial judgment. Do you even read the pages that you link to, or are you just trying to make it look like the link supports your argument?

Question for Barney: You mention BLP1E. What's the "1E" in BLP1E? What's the one event? You're not being clear enough. You can't just pull out policy links like buzzwords without actually explaining why it doesn't meet BLP1E. -- benlisquare_T•
C•
E 19:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Belisquare ( talk · contribs) - the 1E is the internet meme that lasted until everyone got bored with it. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 19:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I did read it. I saw AfD for the fourth time on the page and thought enough. I read the article and agreed, she is only notable for one event - being the prosecutor general of a region does not make her notable. If she was the prosecutor general of a country, then that would be different.-- Laun chba ller 20:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Have a direct quote from that page: "What goes on the frontpage is a matter of editorial judgment; there is no entitlement for any article to run on DYK, no matter how well it "meets the criteria", and there is certainly no entitlement for any one DYK entry to occupy the "pictured" spot." You're not making any sense by using the DYKN as an argument. If you want to argue policy, argue policy; don't make misleading statements by bringing DYKN into this. Not being DYK friendly is not one of the criteria for article deletion. -- benlisquare_T•
C•
E 20:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

That was what clinched the nomination for me, though that doesn't take away the fact that this article fails WP:BLP1E.-- Laun chba ller 20:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I may disagree with the BLP1E argument; as someone who plays an integral role in the Crimean crisis, she's a pretty important person, no less involved in the entire crisis than Sergey Aksyonov, Oleksandr Turchynov and Arseniy Yatsenyuk. She also was responsible for putting Ruvim Aronov behind bars, and she is also the unfortunate subject of an internet following. That's multiple reasons for notability already. Also, stop messing around with my formatting. You're refactoring my comments. I don't want that forwardslash there. -- benlisquare_T•
C•
E 20:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

(ec) I am afraid you have an unconvential understanding of WP:BLP1E. Poklonskaya at this point is notable for at least three events: Press-conf, the warning to the Majlis, and the fact that she made it to the list of individuals sanctioned by the EU. Somehow you argue that since all these three things relate to the Crimean crisis, she fails WP:BLP1E. But then say Joachim Murat would also fail WP:BLP1E, since he is only notable for his role in Napoleonic wars and pretty much unnotable outside of this context. This is clearly now how we usually apply WP:BLP1E.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

She is known for more than one event. According to WP:Politician, individuals who “ have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office” are notable. Furthermore, even local politicians can be notable if they “have received significant press coverage”. Poklonskaya clearly meets this guideline, so she is an individual notable for her position, but who also got a sifgnificant spike of coverage due to her one speech and meme status. This is not grounds for deletion because if the 1e, the internet meme and press conference, had not occurred, she would still meet notability requirements. Unless you are arguing that her meme status has somehow decreased her notability (which to be clear, it does not), then there are no grounds for deletion per BLP1E. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - The article meets the WP:GNG. Some editors may not like what the article entails, however you cannot deny that if people are actively looking for it on Wikipedia, it is therefore notable. This article has gotten 592,691 hits within the past 90 days (despite only existing for 65 days), which would suggest that this individual is just as notable than Jimmy Wales, whose article has a meager 113,292 views for the same time period. Wikipedia is written for the readers, and not a bunch of know-it-alls who write articles. -- benlisquare_T•
C•
E 20:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep (another waste of time, this) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Obviously notable as they hold a notable office. -- Jakob ( talk) ( my editor review) 21:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - Passes criteria #1 and #2 of WP:POLITICIAN. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - I actually don't want this to be speedy closed, because the previous AfD's WP:SNOW close has led to dispute among some users. Anyway, just like to say that If BLP:1E refers to her Internet popularity (the 1E is the internet meme that lasted until everyone got bored with it. Barney the barney barney) how in the world can the career section be over 84% of the body and has 35 references? There is no way the article does not satisfy WP:GNG. Also, being the prosecutor general of a region does not make her notable. If she was the prosecutor general of a country, then that would be different Launchballer - look at Category:State attorneys general in the United States. I think we have 500-1000 articles on state attorneys in the US. starship.paint "YES !" 22:17, 23 May 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.