Talk:Magomed Tushayev

Declining
, thank you for reviewing the draft. However, I disagree with your reasoning for the decline. Firstly, there's not one, but six articles from before 2022 cited in the article. Note also that not all the 2022 sources talk about his death reported on 26 February. Some also discuss on whether he is actually dead or not, and some are about the supposed video in which he appeared. While it's all related to the report of his death, these additional debates add to notability in my opinion, as a single newspaper could have released three different articles on him, one on the report of his death, another on the video and another on the newspaper's analysis on the case. Not sure if I've made my point across with this.

Secondly, I am not sure if your interpretation of WP:BIO1E is adequate. Nowhere there does it say that all the sources must not be from around the same period. It advises against creating biographies for people known for one single event. Tushayev is clearly mostly notable because of his reported death, but also for being a high-ranking official on the Chechen military and for his role on the LGBT purges. If all the sources covering all of this came from the same day hypothetically, that in itself wouldn't go against WP:BIO1E, because the policy is not about the used sourcing.

I do not say that this article may be notable, as it is not too obvious in this case, but I believe that the reasons that you've given can be questioned. You are welcome to defend your position or perhaps reconsider your decision or decide to leave it to a third person. Super  Ψ   Dro  21:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Super Dromaeosaurus you are entirely right. I think I had been accidentally looking at the article-accessed dates in the citation, rather the publication, and had not opened and read every citation in a way that would have shown my mistake.
 * I am not entirely sure if this all adds up to notability anyway, the sourcing from before his death all adds up to pretty thin coverage all things considered, but it's much less clear cut than I thought and I would not have been comfortable making that call. Please feel free to resubmit; I will leave a comment to make it clear to the next reviewer that my previous rejection was incorrect. Rusalkii  (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've resubmitted the draft. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically you undid the previous decline, which isn't technically "resubmitting"; I do apologise but I didn't realise this discussion predicated it, so I undid your edit, but I have now resubmitted the draft for review. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry, I don't know where exactly does one submit drafts, I do it manually. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For future reference, every decline notice has a "Resubmit" button on it (unless the page has already been resubmitted). Primefac (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah I just saw it, for some reason I hadn't seen it before even though its big. Thanks for your help. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)