Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Mitroshina


 * 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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Alexandra Mitroshina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article represents biography of a living person that does not meet Wikipedia's notability (People) guideline as well as general notability guideline. Article's content mainly relies on primary sources or sources that are not considered reliable, which makes it impossible to verify most of the information presented. Juliette Han (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be an influencer whose claim to fame (besides promoting herself in every corner of the Internet) is that she was banned from Ukraine for promoting the invasion. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. --Mitte27 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most sources are unreliable or interviews, there are only and  which are ok, and they do not look like significant coverage. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. She is a notable blogger and political activist (against violence in Russian society) and easily passes GNG, but most sources about her were published in Russian and Ukrainian languages. The sources are, for example, RFE/RL projects ,,,,. Note that the whole articles are specifically about her (not anything in passing), and the last article was entitled ("The week in Crimea: Putin in Crimea, but Mitroshina in Kiev"). Other multiple RS also tell a lot about her, in detail, for example,  (this is Meduza), and o on . Of course the page about her was deleted in Russian Wikipedia - because she is a notable political activist. Some English language publications, specifically about her:  Time, BBC,  IBT, RFE/RL, MSN, NBC, Reuters,  and a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a Russian-speaking member of Wikipedia community, I want to confirm that this person does not pass WP:GNG even regarding the previous comment. Most of the media mentions appear to be paid content, thus these sources can not be used to prove notability. The article was deleted in Russian Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy only, none of the political reasons have anything to do with that. Should also be mentioned that being a blogger or activist does not guarantee a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.Tulpan64 (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to notice that user Tulpan64 made only four edits in the project, specifically to vote "delete" here. One should not be an expert in Russian to realize that the publications by RFE/RL and Meduza above are NOT paid content. Yes, many good pages in Russian Wikipedia were deleted for purely political reasons, and certain pages are an outright disinformation. There is nothing one can do about it. This is the reason I never edit in Russian Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have never edited Russian Wikipedia yet you believe there is a political bias on its AfD? I would rather say it has more harsh rules, modelled on the rules of German Wikipedia, not on that of English Wikipedia. For example, we usually do not consider interviews for GNG and there is rather harsh inplementation of NOTNEWS principle. I am not sure whether Mitroshina is notable by the rules of Russian Wikipedia, but the sources mentioned on its AfD there do not indicate it in the slightest. If you believe it is wrong, you may open a review of AfD on ru:ВП:ВУС, but take care to read ru:ВП:АКТИВИСТЫ carefully. P. S. I would believe it very discriminatory and rude to suppose that Wikipedia where half the users is from a totalitarian country necessarily has a political bias. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a place to debate Russian WP (I know what I am talking about), however the deletion of her page there looked suspicious to me because she is so widely known: 2+ million subscribers and a lot of publications about her, even in English (now included). My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator of this AfD, User:Juliette Han repeatedly modified my comments on this page over my objections ,,. I have never seen such behavior even during the most heated AfDs before. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reason for the action made was stated in the Edit summary. Please see WP:AFDDISCUSS - 'Behavior' - 'It is acceptable to correct the formatting in order to retain consistency with the bulleted indentation.' to understand why this edit is relevant. Personal references, such as assertions about someone's behavior, do not belong to any of Wikipedia's discussions. Juliette Han (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments. If I want to make a separate "comment" on an AfD, this is absolutely my right, is not it? But whatever. I am not going to edit war. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I fixed content of the page by including references to Time, BBC, IBT, RFE/RL, MSN, NBC, Reuters and checked other references currently on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've looked into all the references added and still believe that the article's subject is not notable enough as per WP:GNG. Most of the sources primarily describe a specific movement against domestic violence in Russia, while the person in matter is only mentioned amongst other participants. It is therefore impossible to cover the whole biography of this person in a separate article. Moreover, I was not able to find any citations in these sources to back up most of the facts that are at the moment presented in the article. In this case, it's just not clear what is the basis for the assertion that this particular Internet personality should have a Wikipedia article written in English. Juliette Han (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Indeed, there were two women, her and Alena Popova who started it. Now included. I also referenced all details of her biography to a publication by RFE/RL. In any event, your initial justification for deletion ("Article's content mainly relies on primary sources or sources that are not considered reliable, which makes it impossible to verify most of the information presented.") do not longer apply. If you think any of the remaining sources on the page are not RS, please say, and I will fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It is clear that the sources in the article are independent and reliable. Further discussion regarding whether the sources sufficiently discuss this particular individual should take place.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 22:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, simply having a blog with more than 2 million subscribers should be enough already. And yes, the entire publications in mainstream newspapers are dedicated exclusively or mostly to her and a movement she initiated together with another women, . My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Majority of sources are weak and unreliable. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which sources are weak and unreliable? Time, BBC, IBT, RFE/RL, MSN, NBC, Reuters? My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. Time, Reuters, NBC, BBB are weak and unreliable?  May I ask what constitutes a reliable source?  I do not believe this comment and those like them help judge consensus.  there is room to discuss whether these sources adequately discuss the topic at hand (person) or solely discuss the movement in general with only passing mentions of the person.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not include it on the page, but refs #1 and #5 are mostly about a completely different controversy with her (not the movement against domestic violence), i.e. her expulsion from the Ukraine for visiting Crimea without getting the Ukrainian visa (there was a protest during her visit to Ukraine, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even without evaluating the Russian sources, which I can't do, there's clearly enough reliably sourced material for an article here, which is the point of our notability standards. At least the International Business Times piece is directly about Mitroshina, and relatively in-depth. The other English-language articles, also by reliable sources, are more about her campaign than herself, but she is discussed throughout, not just in passing mentions. We can perhaps discuss whether Mitroshina herself or her campaign should be the formal topic of the article, but taken together they certainly qualify for an article. At worst, the content could be merged into a broader-scoped article about the apparently state-sanctioned domestic violence in Russia.   Sandstein   20:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.