Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya

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, early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya

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

Synopsis: Coatrack for Anna_Politkovskaya. Even more so because the content being placed in here is being contested here .

It's being used to insert facts in contention from the main article KoshVorlon 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC) KoshVorlon 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Anna Politkovskaya was a highly notable and influential journalist who had a long career. She is not known just for her death. Her assassination was politically motivated and caused worldwide outrage. There is no reason it should not be a separate article, just like Assassination of Boris Nemtsov. This is not what WP:COATRACK is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's already discussed on her article the second article is a coatrack for the OR and SYNTH that's currently being discussed in this RFC , it is indeed a fork of that same article and a coatrack for the OR and the SYNTH that many have attempted to place in the main article. KoshVorlon 17:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what coatrack is. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." This article is about her assassination, preceding events and subsequent events (investigation and trial). There is one section of supposedly related events, but even if that section is disputed, it doesn't make the article itself a coatrack of Anna Politkovskaya. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense proposal It's not a coatrack. One article is about the person, Anna, who is notable in her own right, even if she had never been murdered. The other article is about her assassination, which was also notable in its own right. This is like claiming that the article Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a coatrack for the article Martin Luther King, Jr.. If anything it just reveals the proposer's ignorance. Snow keep this please. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a disruptive nomination from a serially disruptive editor. No reasonable grounds for deletion provided; this appears to be yet another case of User:KoshVorlon making up a non-existent policy and then demanding Wikipedia comply with it. If KV can provide an actual policy-based argument for deletion I'll reconsider—the fact that he hasn't done so strongly suggests to me that he's as aware as everyone else that there isn't one. ‑ iridescent 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and SNOW close. KoshVorlon believes this article to be a coatrack based solely on the fact that the bit about Putin's birthday, which is currently being discussed at Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#RfC, is in this article. So this entire 9 year old, well-sourced article about a notable subject has to be axed because of that one bit of contested information. Ridiculous.--Atlan (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Content controversy cannot justify deletion of a clearly notable subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - useful, informative article. Its existence allows to present a lot of details of the murder and keep some balance in the main Anna Politkovskaya article Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable event and subject. Thoroughly sourced article. Looks like a contentious nomination. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Iridescent. Begoon ^talk 09:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Bad-faith nomination, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's law. Nominator is due a block or ban if this keeps up. Softlavender (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. BMK (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2015 (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.