Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of Vladimir Putin's death or incapacity


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Predictions of Vladimir Putin's death or incapacity

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

A mixture of trivia, news-of-the-day, and speculation masquerading as biography. Yes, all these can be documented. No, none of it mattered even three days later. People obviously hope that Putin goes away somehow, but again, that's not an encyclopedic subject. Any actual event of consequence belongs in Putin's biography, not sequestered in a list such as this. They do not belong anywhere here at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is needed. It is more like speculating and trying to predict the future. Cwater1 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination does not present any policy-based arguments for deletion and actually should be counted as a Merge !vote and not Delete (i.e. "Any actual event of consequence belongs in Putin's biography, not sequestered in a list such as this.") The argument "The do not belong anywhere here at all." [sic] is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Further, our WP:CRYSTALBALL policy (an argument that OP did not make it) does not apply as that policy refers to predictions of future events. This is an exhaustively WP:RS-sourced list of past predictions that received WP:SIGCOV for the act of predicting this subject (in other words, sources are largely third party reporting on the sociological phenomenon of predicting Putin's death, versus the originally published predictions). This is not unlike our long-established articles:
 * Predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union,
 * Predictions of the end of Wikipedia,
 * Predictions of the end of Google,
 * List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events,
 * 2011 end times prediction,
 * List of predictions,
 * Predictions and claims for the Second Coming, and a thousand others. Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That lots of these articles get created is only evidence that plenty of people have no idea what belongs in an encyclopedia. Yes, pundits predicted the end of the USSR over and over; that shows that these sorts of predictions are worthless, and really there's no argument made that these predictions were important. Ditto for the Google and Wikipedia article. These articles get created because they don't require a lot of work, not because they are valuable, and the message of these (which is really common knowledge in the fields of pundit-reading) is that these predictions are usually bunk— which is why most of these were flashes-in-the-pan which were forgotten about when pushed aside by the next news cycle. As for 2011 end times prediction, it should have stayed in the main Harold Camping article, along with all his other manifestly false prophecies of the end times that in the end everyone forgot the specifics of. You're making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and in the end you've simply directed me to more articles that ought to go. Mangoe (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "You're making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument" Mangoe - with all due respect, you're not making any argument at all. You haven't cited any relevant policy in your nomination or in your latest comment; "none of it mattered" is not a reason covered by our deletion policy for the removal of content. In my !vote I actually had to come up with a policy to argue on your behalf (i.e. CRYSTALBALL) just so I could respond. Chetsford (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything that passes GNG belongs on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's categorically incorrect. Notability is necessary but not sufficient. Failing WP:NOT is one reason something that is notable might not belong on Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If something is NOT then it can't pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure it can. Passing WP:GNG merely requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's nothing stopping something like that from running afoul of WP:NOT in one way or another. TompaDompa (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing listed on that page can really have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.★Trekker (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure it can (if not it would of course be entirely superfluous). How-tos and game guides are one example. Unverifiable speculation is another. Genealogies are a third. If we want to go really silly, today's weather certainly receives significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. TompaDompa (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. While many predictions received extensive coverage in media, there's no indication that any of them had lasting significance required by WP:EVENTCRITERIA. PaulT2022 (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "there's no indication that any of them had lasting significance" Hmmm. That doesn't appear to be correct.
 * This 2015 Vox article covers the history of predictions made in 2012.
 * This 2023 New Statesman article covers the history of a prediction made in 2022.
 * This 2022 report from the Center for European Policy Analysis covers the history of predictions from 2003, 2005, and 2021.
 * This 2022 New York Times article mentions predictions from 2017 and 2020.
 * etc., etc. I can keep listing these, unless you'd prefer to just read the entry? Chetsford (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The first three sources are opinion columns and blogs. The NYT article doesn't discuss predictions in depth – it reports a few opinions about Putin's health itself without thorough analysis. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and it isn't focused on predictions.
 * I don't think an article speculating about the health based on rumours would meet WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. As it stands, the article mainly addresses predictions, and the sources provided don't satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA in my opinion. Most publications that touch on predictions cover a handful of specific contemporaneous predictions, rather than addressing the phenomenon of predictions holistically.
 * Additionally, upon reviewing the linked NYT article, WP:FRINGE might be a more suitable rationale for deletion if the article in question presents rumours circulated by journalists and bloggers that contradict assessments from MI6 and the CIA as reliable expert opinions. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "The first three sources are opinion columns and blogs." No, that's completely incorrect. Are you reading the right article? In any case, I realize I've posted several responses so I'll limit my comments here to this one item to avoid bludgeoning: CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here. CRYSTALBALL discusses predictions of future events. This article is a historical timeline of past predictions and is about the predictions themselves as historical events, not the content of the predictions. If this article discussed predictions of Putin's death occurring in the future then it would be covered by CRYSTAL. But there isn't a single example of that (perhaps it would be better named "Past Predictions of ...). Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the four sources listed in your comment above. Sorry if this was unclear. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Having finally had time to look at the four sources, I find they are all saying variations on what I'm saying: that the predictions themselves are insubstantial rumors. The articles refer to past instances as examples of how they are not notable because they never amounted to anything. I just don't see how this supports a keep of this article. There is clearly a place in Putin's bio for the persistence of rumors about his health, but it needs to report the substance of the references given, rather than burying the story in a mass of detail whose only relevance, according to the analysts, is that no single prediction is important because all of them are wrong. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, if the predictions or speculation are correct doesn't impact that it is something getting regular coverage.★Trekker (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I seem to have to keep reminding people, this isn't about notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are not speculations about some celebrity (although there is also an article "Paul is dead" – 35 language versions), but a dictator deciding everything important in the country with the largest area and almost 150 million inhabitants. There are also articles "Possible monorchism of Adolf Hitler" (7 language versions) and "Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death" (14 language versions). Wikipek (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be precise, they are rumors about a dictator whom a lot of people would like to go away. Nonetheless, they are ephemeral speculations of no lasting import. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As in the three articles linked in my comment. And yet these articles and many others like them are not deleted. Wikipek (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Paul is dead" is about the phenomenon, a specific urban legend which is documented as such. It was widely reported on at the time and later. It happened, and it was a notable rumor which got notable coverage. This is not the same.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. for the sheer entertainment value of the rumors. Yes, I believe it is in the same ballpark as "Paul is dead", and even "Elvis is alive" being turned into a humorous moment in the movie "Death Becomes Her". Putin doesn't give us much to laugh about.  Let us have this. — Maile  (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maile66, while I see your point, I don't think I've ever seen the argument in an AFD that we should keep an article for its entertainment value. Wikipedia, after all, is a very serious place. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - Ah ... well. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have to concur on this. We have areas for entertainment (see WP:Department of Fun, but it's nearly always in the userspace or occasionally Wikipedia namespace (see No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-man, an older "official lunacy" and one of my personal favorites). While I would support the inclusion of this article, I don't support it for this reason, and I would recommend all humor and entertainment on Wikipedia be in userspace.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep; in addition to previous arguments made regarding the impact of his death, I personally believe that we should not have to worry about CRYSTALBALL if multiple clearly reliable sources are making these predictions. If all we're doing is covering the world's theories as stated by reliable sources, then I don't think we're doing anything wrong.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 17:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously they aren't reliable if the predictions don't come true! Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 5 September 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.