Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Russia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Russia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Russia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia

Scan for Russia related AfDs

Russia

Richard Yagutilov

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a filmmaker and photographer, and cannot find reliable sources to add. I thought it possible the Gold Remi award from the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival might make him notable, but this is not the highest award they give and I cannot find verification of the 2004 award winners. I do not think he is notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NFILMMAKER. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Photography, and Russia. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet

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

Nomination to deletion initiated due to:

1) WP:NOTNEWS + WP:NOTBLOG: Wikipedia article is not list of press releases and company's announcements. Notorious 1xbet Wikipedia article written like a regular report by marketing specialist to his boss about Brand marketing activities. Not any single sentences applies to WP:Notability, except Controversies (See WP:NOCRIT, which means all article's reliable sources cannot refer only Criticism) and information regarding fraud activities.

2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam.

≈ In conclusion, delete/draftify and wait to further re-creation by experienced and recognized author on WP:AFC in completely encyclopedic style with many independent and reliable significant coverage references on each sentence. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 1xBet article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines through its detailed documentation of the company’s background and significant milestones, such as partnerships with FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, this appears to be in a similar fashion to other gambling companies such as Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred just to name a few. These sections and the controversies sections are supported by reliable, independent sources, ensuring unbiased verifiability. The content is not a list of press releases but a factual account of the company's history, developments and controversies which are crucial to understanding their impact in the industry. Any promotional language can be adjusted to enhance the encyclopedic tone and neutrality of the article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet does not look ready for mainspace, but it's notable enough to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfC. Also just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that 1xbet has to have a page in mainspace in such blatant promotion condition. TBH, Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred not doing cross-wiki spam (as 1xbet did), so they exist.

Secondly, notice WP:COI and try to improve the page in constructive way instead of defending blatand promotion. How about Draftify 1xbet and together work on the development from scratch (with other editors on WikiProject Companies) for 4-5 months before it will accomplish all Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So anxious to get an answer. Indiana's Football (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that because other gambling company articles exist that this one should. It was a response to you calling into question how the article is written. My intent was to give other examples within the gambling niche that have the same structure, e.g. 'Lead', 'History', 'Sponsors', 'Controversies' sections, etc.

I agree with you that the 'Controversies' section is important. However, it needs to be a part of a balanced article, and suggesting that the article should only be focused on controversies is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. I want to call into question what your motive is and why it is so important to you that the article only focuses on controversies and nothing else? Do you have a vendetta against the company that influences this need for a negative bias?

I can see another user has left a comment on your talk page stating that you shouldn’t be jumping into areas that are unsuitable for new editors, as this defies Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you have been blocked before and this is a new account you have created? Your account is about 20 days old, but you have the knowledge of an experienced user – something doesn't add up, and you have all of the telltale signs of a sock puppet. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Article(s) cannot be based only on press-releases (WP:SIRS).

2. Article(s) cannot be based only on criticism (even if Criticism with reliable independent significant coverage sources (WP:CRIT)). 3.

3. So how about Draftify an article 1xbet and work on it together for a few months? For example, we can draft History paragraph instead of Ad in form of Expansion section? You still haven't answered, buddy. Indiana's Football (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no necessity to re-write the article as it is already comprehensive and well balanced. Instead of deleting and re-drafting the page, the best thing to do is to focus on improving the current article by updating references, consolidating repetitive information and making any changes that improve readability.

It is obvious you have a biased agenda as you deleted my most recent edit, which contained well-referenced information from a reliable source, whilst you made no attempt to remove any unreferenced information. This serves as proof that you have a vendetta against this company, and this is influencing and driving your agenda to re-draft the page with a focus on controversy. We can constructively edit the current article and have civil discussions on the talk page, but I don't agree to drafting a new article.

You have also ignored my previous point, so I will ask again, how do you have such a deep understanding on the knowledge and usage of advance Wikipedia strategy after editing for only a few weeks? I’m not convinced this is your first time here and I highly suspect you may have been banned before and I don’t think it would be a good idea if you drafted a new article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the 1xbet page history, User:Keith161 after puppet User:Timtime88 fallen down, created another one called Bringmethesunset to continue promoting corporate brand by loading indefinite number of press releases. Blatant promotion, probably even WP:SALT can be applied. Can you feel puppet's pain across the screen so he hurry up to defend 1xbet here? Request to check page history, user contributions and CheckUserIP could be applied. Indiana's Football (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NordStar destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and common sense.

Common sense is failed because this is largely a listing of where this airline does not regularly fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated" or "seasonal". What little encyclopaedic content there may be here is already summarised at the parent article.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. Either the information is taken directly from the company website, or (as in the ATO.ru and om1.ru sources) they are based on company press-releases. Links to Euronews, the BBC, and New York Times are included but these do not mention the airline at all - instead they are used to support the WP:OR conclusion that various NordStar flights are terminated.

There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.

Finally this fails WP:V because whilst this is supposedly a listing of destinations served as of February 2021, none of the sources are from that date - they are all years before or years after it. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Russia. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the 2018 RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom in this case is not based on the 2018 RFC. A no-consensus close (partly based on the a train-wreck) is just that: not a consensus. It says nothing about this specific article. FOARP (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosbif73 - I guess what you're doing here is clarifying that you're previous vote was not only based on the 2018 RFC, correct? FOARP (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't intend to !vote twice. I've struck the second one. But indeed, my initial !vote was based on the WP:NOT violations and other points you raised as nom, and on the rationale behind the 2018 RfC result, not on the RfC result per se. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I don't think the 2018 RFC was "vacated" by the later discussion because, very obviously, a no-consensus close cannot do that, since it is isn't a consensus to do anything. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely: no consensus implies that the status quo continues. But for the avoidance of doubt, the rationale that led to the RfC result is more important here than the result itself. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China

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

I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:

(1) The article's subject (i.e., ~~three~~ ~~four~~ two foreign trips), is not independently notable. Foreign trips are an absolutely routine matter for ministers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state. Since Orbán undertook those trips as the prime minister of Hungary, they can of course be mentioned in Fifth Orbán Government or similar.

(2) The article's topic is overly vague. Article was created four days ago under the undoubtedly POV title, "2024 peace missions by Viktor Orbán", focusing on Orbán's three foreign trips: to Ukraine, Russia, and China. Then yesterday, his fourth trip, to the US, was added.[1]. After the article, and in particular its title, was challenged via PROD,[2] the US and Ukraine trips were removed and article renamed to its current title. This even further reduced not just notability but even WP:SIGNIFICANCE of these WP:RECENT events.

Overall, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have a separate article on Orban's two foreigns trips, which will be all barely remembered in a year from now.

So, it'll be either a hard delete or a merge and redirect to an existing article about Orbán's government. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Hungary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's at least 20 sources, with an extensive analysis for each point made, I'm not sure what else you could want at this point. It meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was clear: it's not notable for a standalone article. See, for every news event, you'll have dozens of sources. For every speech of a US president, you'll have possibly hundreds of rolling news reports. But this doesn't mean that each speech should receive a standalone Wikipedia article. Same concern here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a broader article covering the Fifth Orbán Government or Viktor Orbán's diplomacy. The article covers the trips in some detail. Yet, they do not appear to meet the threshold for standalone notability due to their routine nature as part of a head of state's duties. Adding this info to a broader context will keep the relevant historical record. Yet, it will avoid giving too much weight to events that may not last. This approach will also streamline related content. It will strengthen the details of Viktor Orbán's political movements. It will also make the new article more complete.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Violation of WP:NOTNEWS, see also WP:RECENT. The topic is notable only as part of 2024 Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Fifth Orbán Government, and / or similar. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an international diplomatic conflict that has already generated so many sources and comments is always notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a polite observation that this is not an article about a diplomatic conflict, whatever that may mean. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please save this cynical comment for others. It's just a polite note. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Many of the sources in the article do treat the three visits as one cohesive topic, but for now, we have no knowledge of what lasting significance these visits may have. I cannot find any real effects that have come of these meetings except reactions from various countries, but that does not constitute stand alone notability in my mind. Instead, this can adaquetely be covered in an article like the Fifth Orbán Government. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's not a general subarticle for his prime ministership, but shouldn't his actions during this term be at Fifth Orbán Government? Reywas92^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NEVENT. It's hard to think how a single state visit by a political leader could be notable given that anything of significance in a visit would be an event (or events) *during* the visit, not the visit per se. For the visit to be notable it would need to rise to the level of something like the 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indeed, these two visits were subjected to an almost unprecedented spotlight, especially his visit to Moscow, and recently even the European Parliament condemned it! It can be kept now and wait. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources indicate the visits received "almost unprecedented" coverage? There needs to be sourcing that indicates why the trips in and of themselves are notable separate from the long-standing policies reaffirmed by Orbán on the trips. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the visits were a subject to significant media coverage, enough to justify a standalone article. It also has 25 reliable and verifiable sources. Overall I fail to see how it would fail WP:NOTABILITY.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia

Russia

Richard Yagutilov

1xbet

List of NordStar destinations

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

Draft

See also