Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golos Pravdy

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. Sandstein 09:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golos Pravdy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A newspaper that only published for four months before shutting shop. No indication of why it is notable. fails WP:ORGCRIT DBig Xrayᗙ 06:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, from what is available in the article. 1) notability isn't temporary. the fact that the publication only lasted 4 months is not a valid argument for deletion. 2) a daily newspaper in Kronstadt in the midst of the Russian revolutions of 1917. The role of the Bolshevik Kronstadt sailors is well recognized in the events of the October revolution, events that shaped the 20th century world history. 3) the newspaper was clearly notable enough to get the national government to order its closure. --Soman (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
If you have any evidence of the subject passing WP:ORGCRIT then let me know. Simple WP:ASSERTN and repeated chanting of "WP:Clearly notable" doesn't really make something notable. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many contemporary internet hits for the contemporary paper Голос правды, a different publication. Acknowledging that, here we have an excellent encyclopedic contribution of the organ of the Kronstadt fleet during the Russian Revolution. Passes GNG for coverage in monographs by Saul and Getzler and more extensive coverage in Большевистская печать: кратике очерки истории, 1894-1917 гг [The Bolshevik press: Short historical essays, 1894-1917."] Carrite (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The nominator mistakes longevity and personal perceptions of importance for notability, which in Wikipedia terms means being the subject of multiple instances of substantial published coverage of presumed reliability. Our GNG rules exist to eliminate such normative assessments.Carrite (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - absolutely what Soman and Carrite have said. The newspaper is the subject of scholarly studies of the early Bolshevik period and the Kronstadt events of 1917 and beyond to 1921. Definitely a notable, even an important, subject, and I have to concur that a normative assessment has been made in nominating for deletion. Spokoyni (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@all, if the newspaper did extraordinary things in its short lifespan of four months, then it should be easy to show how it passes the WP:ORGCRIT (which as you might be aware is a higher bar than GNG required for Orgs to have their own article). Without hard evidence of how WP:ORGCRIT is met, hand waving comments stating WP:Clearly notable and WP:Assertion don't really help the AfD.DBig Xrayᗙ 08:17, 4 February 2020 (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.