Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Samarin (3rd 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 delete. This basically comes down to WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS against WP:N. BLP1E and NOTNEWS are policies which document circumstances where meeting the guideline WP:N is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Therefore the delete camp has the stronger argument in policy, and also has the numerical advantage.

The comment about previous AfDs is a) irrelevant and b) incorrect. This article did not pass two AfDs. The first was no consensus and the second was withdrawn after noticing the existence of the first. SpinningSpark 18:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Samarin (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)

Article subject is pure BLP1E, which is a "bright line" policy. All coverage is directly related to his 2016 arrest. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is clearly one-event. The fact that it was odd enough to get some local press coverage does not overcome the fact that it is still one event, and not at a level to establish that it meets the guidelines for including criminals and their actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's literally nothing here but attention for those trivial events, therefore there's nothing to suggest we should see this any other way. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLP1E is outweighed by the independent coverage here. The fact that this passed two earlier AFDs also weighs in. South Nashua (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was a 2nd round of publicity [1] at the time of his guilty plea in August, 2016. Far too much RS coverage [2] to make deletion plausible. Coverage was not confined to local;it has been national and international.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLP1E is indeed outweighed by the independent coverage here. artcle quality and size is also irrelevant in comparison to the mentioned factors. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no indications why this should be in an encyclopedia. I don't see any long-term societal impact; merely being sensationalised in the media. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG. WP:1 & WP:NOTNEWS also applicable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sourcing Ongoing, intense, in-depth coverage across 2 continents. It's what makes a scam artist WP:NOTABLE. New round of coverage this week because of sentencing. Here's yesterday's The Daily Telegraph, "Ukrainian man jailed after posing as child and attending high school ," [3], one of many articles on both sides of the pond in the latest round of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NOTNEWS applies. Just one of these weird human interest news stories that the media like to pass around for clicks or to fill their pages; no lasting importance to anybody except those involved.  Sandstein  15:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - BLP1E is NOT outweighed simply by the number of articles that cover the one event, no matter how far apart they appear on a timeline. Arguing otherwise shows a profound misunderstanding of the Biography of Living Persons policy. And the results of prior AfDs have little to no bearing on THIS one where BLP1E is concerned. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (Qualified) Keep - Clearly this is a person notable for one event. What I think the other keep !votes are getting at is that per BIO1E (as opposed to BLP1E) this would more appropriately be an article about the event rather than the person. There is ample sourcing to show notability, so no problem there. And frankly, the article as it stands now is not a biography anyway, so little more would be needed than a name change to something like Asher Potts Incident. Then the article could focus the same things to sources do - trial proceedings, analysis of how he came to be in the country, remedial step considered by the school system, etc. However I do not advocate keeping this as a biography. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classical NOTNEWS, BLP1E. --Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per BLP1E -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Interesting information, but not the type of material that merits its own encyclopedia article. We also don't have articles for every fireman that rescued a cat stuck in a tree.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the definition of notability is something that has received significant coverage from independent sources; if CNN, Fox, ABC, Huffington Post, Washington Post all covered the topic, I say it meets that definition to a T. Icebob99 (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True but overridden by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 28 November 2016 (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.