Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anatoly Klyan


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Death of Anatoly Klyan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is only notable for having a non-significant role (dead journalist) in a bigger event (2014 ukraine).


 * WP:BIO1E says:
 * When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event

बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Russia,  and Ukraine. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep But this article, Death of Anatoly Klyan, is about the event, as recommended by WP:BIO1E. The event is clearly notable as evidenced in the article. Thincat (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are saying 'Journalist Dying' is a major role in the event 'Death of Journalist', which is obvious an can be said about pretty much any WP:NOTNEWS topic. Also, from WP:EVENTCRIT:
 * Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
 * All the sources in the article are from exactly June 30, 2014, so it has no lasting coverage. And like written above, deaths/crimes/political news are not notable "unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". बिनोद थारू (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:BIO1E is already refuted above. And this article clearly passes WP:GNG. And his death isn't just one of those "most deaths" mentioned; it provoked a global response - from the Russian government and UNESCO. That, plus the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "[...] the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article"


 * The reporting was exactly during one day, June 30, 2014. No more articles after that. Saying "it helps the case" words things in a way as to not consider the other majority of WP:EVENTCRIT which it clearly fails. Namely:
 * 1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
 * 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
 * 3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
 * 4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
 * Looking at things, not much "helps the case for an article", per WP:EVENTCRIT. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And you're accusing ME of wikilawyering...
 * In any case, 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources is satisfied by the multitude of different RS cited for this article - from The Guardian to Al Jazeera. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are saying it meets a single point of WP:EVENTCRIT (as a journalist death covered by major outlets for one day) yet you haven't explained why that makes it also pass 1, 3, 4 (all requiring lasting coverage, which it obviously doesn't have). बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are saying it meets a single point of WP:EVENTCRIT (as a journalist death covered by major outlets for one day) yet you haven't explained why that makes it also pass 1, 3, 4 (all requiring lasting coverage, which it obviously doesn't have). बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not a biographical article, It is completely fine to keep the article under the present title and scope. Segaton (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment.
 * "It's not a biographical article"


 * Then why is there a subheading called Personal life? बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with EVENTCRIT. MLee1957 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2023 (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.