Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of journalists killed in Russia


 * 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 speedy keep. Non-admin closure. I see that this article touches on controversial issues, but the subject of the list is well-defined and there are sufficient sources provided to merit inclusion (though more sources wouldn't hurt). YechielMan 03:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of journalists killed in Russia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopedic POV. This list is based on one organization's research and definition of who is and is not a journalist. The title does not reflect the actual topic which is the state of press freedom in Russia. There is no comparable article to this, there is no List of journalists killed in Belarus or List of journalists killed in North Korea. Human rights in Russia already covers assassinated journalists and it does not go by one organization's opinion. I would also point out that most of these sub-sections have no actual content, they just have a link. KazakhPol 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. AfD nominator claimed the following reasons for deletion. First "The list is POV." How can list be POV? It does not include any opinions. This article alredy cites Amnesty International, not only one organization. If some people should not be here, they can be excluded from the list rather than the entire article deleted. Second "The list is based on definition who is and is not a journalist". But that is simply a profession, like teacher or a policeman. This is not defining "liberals" or "conservatives". Third "The title does not reflect the actual topic which is the state of press freedom in Russia". Of course it does not, because this is simply a list of murdered journalists, not an article about Human rights in Russia. Fourth "There is no List of journalists killed in Iraq and other similar lists". Good point. We should make such lists. There is nothing to preclude this according to WP rulles. Biophys 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Biophys is one of the two editors who wrote the article in question. KazakhPol 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful index of journalists in this situation. If the list were underpopulated or if there was a lack of media attention on these events, I would consider voting another way. Someone is likely to be searching for this. Also I disagree with KazakhPol that this is "POV," but I agree that sources MUST be added and some more detail would be helpful. Just because there is no List of journalists killed in Iraq, doesn't mean we won't have one in the future. Arbustoo 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and move to cleanup. It is not POV that these people were killed. It is not POV that these people worked as journalists (although there should be attribution for all entries). The subject itself is notable: groups such as Amnesty International and the Glasnost Defence Foundation are talking about it, which means that the topic itself is attributed. We *should* have lists of journalists who have been killed; journalists are often singled out as specific targets to prevent facts from coming to light. So yes: create articles on journalists killed in Iraq, Iran, Palestine, WWII Poland, and other countries, but keep this one as well. -- Charlene 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but get rid of anything that's not meticulously referenced and cited. Lankiveil 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Strong keep, this article could be improved by better sourcing but seems adequate as is. This is definitely encyclopedic information, and this is surely not POV as it contains few claims beyond a person's name, affiliation, and year of death. (If the POV claim is based on the lack of similar articles for other countries, that's a pretty weak argument.) Agree with Charlene that we should have such lists in principle for any country where it is reasonable to do so. We have several categories of murdered journalists including Category:Journalists killed in Iraq and the broad Category:Murdered journalists, and there are several journalist deaths in articles such as List of unsolved murders and deaths, List of assassinated people from Turkey, and so forth. (I'm personally unsold on the difference between a murder of a journalist and an assassination of a journalist, but that's neither here nor there.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Improve it, don't delete it.  This is a highly notable subject and the content is factual and verifiable.  It's not the job of the writers of this article to do similar lists for every other country on earth to justify the inclusion of this one.  Nick mallory 08:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep despite it going against my every instinct - I'm sure keeping it up violates every policy going, as well as going against my arguments for deleting & salting every time another "List of victims of..." comes up, but this is a core piece of - documented - evidence (the Glasnost Foundation may have compiled the list, but it's not a single source but the collator of independent verifiable sources) of a trend which forms a large and important background to assorted social-trends-in-Russia articles (most obviously Human rights in Russia). Merging it back into the articles would both make them unmanageably long, but lead to content-forking. I think in this case WP:IAR takes clear precedence over WP:MEMORIAL -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above, and seems concise enough. With the amount of reporting the killings of journalists in Russia has received there is a valid reason for this grouping. StuffOfInterest 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and verifiable. There should be lists for other countries too. Postlebury 20:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but improve; NPOV and verifiable. Improve it, don't delete it.  Needs better sourcing, though. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:25, 22 April 2007 (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.