Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grigory Granaturov

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. After giving it an extra 6 hours or so to see if there's any more discussion to be had, it is pretty much as I'd expected. If anything, consensus to delete is even clearer. I'm not opposed to recreation as a redirect, and the suggestion to expand coverage is a nice thought, but of course there needs to be coverage in reliable sources to expand our own coverage, and there's no evidence that there is enough for this article to exist. ansh 666 07:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grigory Granaturov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article gives insufficient context that this individual is notable. WP:BEFORE [1] shows mirror sites and passing references, such as list inclusion, but insufficient evidence that this individual is notable. With adequate WP:HEY improvement, perhaps article could be kept, but as it sits, insufficient indicia of notability Montanabw^(talk) 22:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Are you serious? Grigory Granaturov was the president of the Federation of International Bandy. In what way is he even to be considered to be not relevant enough for an article? Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:HEY. A three-sentence article fails to provide sufficient indicia of notability. Also, attacking other editors is not appropriate; focus on content and sourcing. If you improve your article to demonstrate that, whatever Bandy is, it's important enough that its officials are notable, then I am willing (as I stated above) to reassess. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what Bandy is then why not look it up in an encyclopedia? It's a major sport in Russia, Scandinavia and some other places. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the length of the article which proves notability, but the content, the information it gives you. An article saying only "Donald Trump is the president of the USA" would prove notability of its subject, even if extremely short and lacking any sources. A president of the USA is always notable. I am of the opinion, a president of the FIB is too. A lack of sources is another problem than the alleged lack of notability and shouldn't affect the view on the notability issue. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to go read WP:GNG again. An article that said "Donald Trump is the president of the USA" would be what is called a passing mention and is specifically called out as not being good enough to proove notability. It requires articles to go into significant depth on the subject in order to provide notability. There is no hard an fast rule on how long that is obviously but a single sentence would never cut it, typically you need a couple paragraphs. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to go read WP:GNG again. A US president is always notable. The sentence about passing mentions is about how facts are collected from sources, it is not about how Wikipedia articles are written. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of sources is how notability is defined. WP:N is quite explicit: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Ravenswing 22:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is how verifiability is defined. An article on Wikipedia must have both notability and verifiability, but they are not defining each other. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG doesn't pick him up as being a notable president of bandy. While I disagree with WP:NOTINHERITED as an essay, when combined with the WP:GNG this subject is a bit of a poster boy for concept, no matter how wrong it is. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't suggest deletions just because you don't know the subject. Boot Blues (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Russian Wikipedia article cites this extensive article about Granaturov along with this and this. That's enough sourcing available online for notability, and, for a subject who retired at just the time that the World Wide Web was being invented, we can expect much more to be available offline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be interested in seeing this content added to expand the article so that it demonstrated notability. See WP:HEY Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two links definitely wouldn't go towards notability, one looks to not be independent and the other is just a database type listing. The first one I am not familiar enough with the site say for certain if it passes muster, leaning towards no but I am investigating further. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, they show the notability which already is evident in the article as it is. I am working on editing this into the article and will add it when this discussion is over. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually WP:GNG requires sources to be independent and to be in significant depth on the individual. It specifically calls out that they can't be WP:ROUTINE coverage or passing mentions such as sports databases. -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the Russian-language sources mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests he passes WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Piotrus, WP:BIO says nothing about sports executives. Neither does Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Would you therefore vote "delete" for the presidents of International Olympic Committee or FIFA too? Boot Blues (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIO actually does, it has a section for basic notability for everyone who isn't specifically listed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. And there is a clear difference between IOC/FIFA and Bandy. The first two are near-household names, the latter one is very niche. (I haven't even heard of Bandy until this AfD). So while the presidents of the first two may well qualify because every president of a major organization is notable, the subject here fails because his organization is not major, but rather, pretty minor (in the scope of, well, everything). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence of meeting the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any evidence the subject meets the GNG either, and as much to the point, the keep proponents haven't supplied any. Attempting to draw parallels to the president of the IOC or FIFA is flat out absurd: anyone want to bet it'd take me as much as half an hour to find a dozen good references for them? Ravenswing 22:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ravenswing: I'd actually take your bet, with regards to at least some of them. But per my point above, they'd be auto-notable due to the virtue of their position, and the subject here isn't, so outside of taking you up on your bet I totally agree that the comparison is absurd :) Or a failed strawman... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh, I've got a newspapers.com sub, which is an invaluable tool for sourcing articles; it's easier than you might imagine to get 1940s newspaper cites, for one. Ravenswing 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I protest the reopening of this AfD after @Ansh666: closed it. As I stated on Ansh666's talk page: "It's already run its course. This AfD's been open for nearly a month, it's been weeks since there's been a new editor advocating anything other than delete, and the only discussion the keep proponents are pushing now is filibustering. There is no obligation to hold an AfD open indefinitely just because one side doesn't like the outcome." No guideline provides presumptive notability for a bandy federation president, and the keep proponents (those who've actually propounded a rationale, anyway) have failed to provide sources that would satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Ravenswing 00:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- *shrug* I'll give it another ~6 hours before reclosing if nothing else comes up. ansh 666 00:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any WP:RS which would support the notion that this person meets WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Federation_of_International_Bandy#Presidents, and expand coverage of all the past presidents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.