Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Geghamyan


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Artyom Geghamyan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Postion does not imply notability, and the purported references are either mere listings or the like--none of them is substantial coverage from a RS.  DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but could be rewritten to be less promotional., , suggests this person is notable in armeniaBrxBrx (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per . Blatant vanity page. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment BrxBrx, the three weblinks you listed are simply announcements -- each one shorter than the last -- by the gov't that he'd been appointed to a deputy ministerial post. This isn't the sort of significant, independent coverage required. I do see there was a short item about his resignation. I think this interview is probably the strongest of the links/refs already on the article, but again, it's more primary than secondary, indie coverage. delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as everything here is still not showing anything for any convincing applicable notability, nothing else convincing especially given the article's current formatting. SwisterTwister   talk  19:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with "the article's current formatting." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it does violate WP:USEPROSE, but that's not a deletion criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't. And the use of a couple of bulleted list for credits is a no way unusual. Anyway, that is indeed beside the point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, little coverage beyond the official announcements about him being appointed Deputy Justice Minister of Armenia and then shortly thereafter dismissed from that post. I did a fairly extensive google search for his name ("Артём Гегамян") in Russian as well. The results are equally strange. Usually for Armenian politicians of any significant (or even minor) standing there is some coverage in Russian media beyond the official bulletins. In his case there really seems no be literally nothing else. Basically nothing before his appointment and nothing after, except for some official leftover pages created while he was still in office, and some reports about his appointment and his dismissal. Not enough here to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The Deputy Justice Minister of a country would seem to be a high enough position to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment We have literally hundreds of articles on US members of congress and US judges that are verbatim copies of the articles on them published by the US government, but no one has tried to delete them. Governments are generally considered to be independent enough of holders of office in the government, that their own publications can stand to pass GNG for office holders if they fit accepted notability creteria, so the only real question here is is the office Geghamyan holds one that confers notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. However, I would hope that most of those articles exist not just based on the title of the position but because there is substantial coverage available, or at least because there is significantly more coverage than what we have here (being appointed, dismissed, and a bio profile page while in office). In fact, many high government U.S. officials do not have Wikipedia articles, particularly various agency heads - essentially sub-ministerial post holders. For example, the current Director of USCIS, Leon Rodriguez, does not have an article, nor does the NCIS Director Andrew Traver. Nsk92 (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deputy ministers are certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * However, it is an appointed position held by an non-elected public official, not an elected political position. 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)


 * Keep Excuse me, can you tell me what I can do to keep this article? What changes can I make to this article so that it will be reliable for you? It's important and I don't want it to be deleted. --Էլինա Գեղամյան (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2016 (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.