Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. and none is going to emerge while his death is literally in the news. Cases are made on both sides (for this purpose, keeping keep/merge together as in preserve vs. not preserving the content) from established editors, and even discounting SPAs and non-policy based !votes, there does not even appear to be a forming consensus. While I do not see a scenario where the content is not included,discussion on where the information is best presented will be helpful tothe reader and could possibly lead to better resolution, including Legacy, Funeral information referenced below. Star Mississippi 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Death of Mikhail Gorbachev

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

Death of Mikhail Gorbachev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion is proposed due to the page violating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. While the death of Gorbachev is newsworthy, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and his passing is not notable enough to warrant an entire separate article. Most Wikipedia articles covering someone's death do so as a result of the death itself warranting a separate article, such as an assassination/murder, or if the death was part of or led to a major event, such as the Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin; this death does not fall under the former, nor does it - as of now at least - fall under the latter. In addition, the article adds very little additional content to what is already included in the article on Mikhail Gorbachev. This article should therefore be deleted and content on Gorbachev's death be added to the main article on Mikhail Gorbachev instead. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 02:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

support - his death is not worthy of an article by itself, and certainly not this quickly Plumeater2 ( talk) 02:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - if presidents of the United States are able to have pages which discuss their deaths, I don't see how Gorbachev can't. Someguy432 ( talk) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:WHATABOUT. — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 17:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — If you want to point out examples, plenty of influential figures, be it Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, George H. W. Bush, Winston Churchill, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all have pages on their death. The only difference between Gorbachev and these figures is that he doesn't have a state funeral, or a funeral at all, at least as of now, but a state funeral should not define whether or not a page is created on his death. I'm aware the political climate in Russia is very tense, especially towards Gorbachev and his policies, but I would not be surprised if Gorbachev had a funeral. A unanimous ITN nomination with the strongest support for a page I've ever seen is enough for me to say that this is something that warrants a page. I don't see the point of an AfD when there will likely be a funeral or some sort of service, and when the topic itself is growing in scale. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at this stage his death seems to be notable. Further, good points have been raised about Western-Bloc bias. Finally WP:NOTNEWS isn't intended to stop articles on current notable events and indeed encourages editors to "develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 03:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or delete. In addition to the nominator's rationale, this is WP:ROUTINE. WP:NEVENTS lists "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths ...) ... are usually not notable", so this is pretty clear-cut to me. Unless we have conspiracy theories, some elaborate funeral, public protests, or heck, even a cause of death, there is nothing here that cannot simply be merged to Mikhail Gorbachev. Toadspike ( talk) 02:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Sorry to disagree but this in not a WP:ROUTINE event. Gorbachev's impact on the world since before and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union is incalculable. This is a huge event and many lament his passing, as demonstrated by the multiplicity of reliable sources in the reference section. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Steve Quinn, I agree. But there is a wider problem here: WP:ROUTINE can be applied to anything, but is used selectively.
If we applied it consistently, we'd delete vast chunks of Wikipedia.
Person elected to public office? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually gets lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Football team wins match? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Big company releases new product? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually gets lots of media coverage. Yawn.
New law enacted? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Criminal commits crime, gets convicted. Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Musician records song, gets in the charts. Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
And so on. I have seen some utterly absurd uses of WP:ROUTINE, and this article is one of them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I thought the people who preceded Gorbachev were Dan and Frank Carney? ( this is a joke ) Stephanie921 ( talk) 04:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
LOL! Well said. 43.250.158.176 ( talk) 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Lmao ty :) Stephanie921 ( talk) 10:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I understand the concerns about recentism and whataboutism, but Mikhail Gorbachev’s death is enormously important, his death marks the transition from the old Soviet world from living memory. The death of Gorbachev is certainly going to be an event people will want to study or learn about, an article is appropriate. R. J. Dockery ( talk) 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think we can say that for sure @ User:R. J. Dockery. People's political beliefs don't revolve around this one man, and even if it did cause metaphysical political change - which I'm not sure it will, since ur point is more about what this represents symbolically, something more suited to an opinion piece than Wikipedia even if ur right - that'd be more about political changes that happen after his death rather than his death itself. It'd be related to other political beliefs that were systemic before his death - or political beliefs opposed to those systems - which would still be about ideas rather than this one event. Anyway, I'd argue the Pizza Hut and Louis Vuitton ads he did are more representative of the Post-fall transition than this Stephanie921 ( talk) 04:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
There are lots of people alive who remember the old Soviet world. There just isn't anyone alive who was the Soviet head of state or head of the Soviet Communist Party. (There are even two people alive who served as Premier of the Soviet Union.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:Metropolitan90 I don't understand what ur trying to say, could u elaborate please? Stephanie921 ( talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Sorry, my response was meant to be directed toward R.J. Dockery, not to you. I meant that Gorbachev's death does not mean that the USSR has been lost to "living memory" (the memory of people now living). I don't disagree with what you wrote above. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah okay, thank you Stephanie921 ( talk) 03:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Per what? There's lots of shit above, including delete !votes. ~Styyx Talk? 06:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Styyx. Asking a editor to elaborate is one thing, but I don't think that it's particularly constructive to call people's contributions 'shit'. (Re-adding this after another user deleted it) Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:Tomorrow and tomorrow I think you misunderstood Styyx. I think they were using shit as a synonym to 'stuff'. I don't think Styyx was being rude. Idk ur pronouns btw Styyx so feel free to tell me and I'll correct this msg if necessary Stephanie921 ( talk) 06:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Stephanie921, thank you for pointing out - reading back I realise it could also have been intended like you say. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 06:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The person being notable doesn't make the death itself notable. 61.1.20.158 ( talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
No @ User:KyleRGiggs The hospital said he died of a "long and prolonged illness".
So there is no any sudden reason there. Then WP:NOTE. KyleRGiggs ( talk) 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge: As with the above reply, the death isn't noteworthy as it wasn't done by murder. Check with other world leader's deaths such as Suharto and Chiang Kai-shek who were also leaders in around the same time which don't have a dedicated page about their death so I see no reason as to why his death warrants a page, otherwise we would have to give every ex-leader of every nation a death page regardless of how they died. - NHPluto ( talk) 10:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also, if we were to keep this article separate, we would need to make it like an actual article. That's the main problem. It would be very nice if there was more in this article. This is the point of Wikipedia. Making an ACCURATE and DETAILED (if possible) free encyclopedia free of any influence, not just "so uh this person died". I hope i didn't say anything wrong with this. Itagam ( talk) 10:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Itagam, I agree this article could be improved, however you say this is "the main problem". Just a reminder that as per WP:ARTN, article content does not determine notability. Whether or not the article is well fleshed out is not relevant to if it should be deleted. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 11:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ah well, i am sorry. Itagam ( talk) 11:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge - Maybe if his death was in some way noteworthy (i.e. it was an assasination or a rare disease etc etc.) it would make sense but it seems it was an uneventful passing. This article is a blatent example of Recentism. FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 12:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The artcle has significant coverage, it can be expanded from other languages pages and be used for the blurb on main page. The size of main artilce is so big it justifies existence of standalone article. Kirill C1 ( talk) 12:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
There is nothing "obvious" about it. We have Mikhail Gorbachev and that's where the coverage belongs. Graham Beards ( talk) 12:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
There seems to be consensus on creating articles about deaths of influential people, see Thatcher, George H. W. Bush, Mandela, so creation of this article is not something extraordinary. Kirill C1 ( talk) 12:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Wrong! There is no consensus **whatsoever** that influential people are entitled to get articles about their deaths. There *is* a consensus that when there is significant information about the circumstances of the death and a major funeral, there may be enough content to justify a split of the article to cover that. That may be the case here in several days, but this article is premature and you should not spew nonsense. Reywas92 Talk 20:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:Reywas92 Please don't tell people things like "you should not spew nonsense". @ User:Кирилл С1 wasn't intentionally trying to say a consensus that didn't exist, and they (idk ur pronouns Кирилл, feel free to tell me and I'll correct this msg if I need to) weren't even saying there was a consensus. They were just saying there seems to be one. Even if they thought a consensus existed, they could have genuinely thought that but just have made a mistake, and it's not constructive to accuse them of spewing nonsense rather than just telling them they're wrong and why. Stephanie921 ( talk) 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Also, consensus is implied given the number of articles covering the deaths of highly notable persons. Consensus is a reasonable assumption at this point because editors have not gathered together and deleted such articles.--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Mikhail Gorbachev no doubt changed the course of history for not only Russia, but the entire world. If this doesn't warrant a separate article for his death, I don't know what does. 2600:1009:B124:9728:38C9:ECA:FF9C:2557 ( talk) 12:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Per @ FishandChipper, notable person ≠ notable death. No one is denying that Gorbachev was an important person, but that does not automatically warrant a separate article for his death unless the death itself was noteworthy (such as assassination, etc.). See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 14:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The parent article is already too long to accommodate all details about his life, so separating it into sub-articles is definitely the right way to go. Also, the numerous reactions to his death and obituaries published in reliable sources make this notable enough.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 13:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Majority of the "reactions" to his death boil down to "____ gave condolences" which isn't exactly that noteworthy. And a large majority of articles on dead people are much longer than Gorbachev's and they only have a death section too. Are you saying that every single person who dies should get an article about who was sad that they died? FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 15:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you think the article is shorter than other death articles, you’re encouraged to expand it with content from reliable sources (there are lots because this has been top news for almost a day). As for whether every single person who dies should get an article, yes if the death receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources as this one.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 18:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    What i meant is that Gorbachev's MAIN article is shorter than some others with only a death section, not this article. And also literally every single actor/musician/politician etc etc etc's death gets coverage in reliable sources nowadays so singling out Gorbachev's is pointless. FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 12:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
While the article will definitely be expanded, it will need far more information than it has now to warrant an article. The Ronald Regan death article is far longer. And one of the exceptions to article about natural deaths. 61.1.22.69 ( talk) 06:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Merge Gorbachev was a very important person during the Cold War and ended it, gave people rights when the Soviet Union existed, and others. Just like the articles of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, ect, these people were very important just like Gorbachev. But since there is no funeral for Gorbachev yet, then this should be merged into the main article. Otherwise, this article should still be kept until further notice. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf ( talk) 22:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep under the rationale that other heads of state have death pages. I would've voted for Merge otherwise. Liliana ( UwU) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    See WP:WHATABOUT. Just because other heads of state have death pages does not mean Gorbachev should therefore have one, especially when the content does not add much more than what is already on the main article on Gorbachev. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 01:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My inclination is to recommend delete, because just being an important person does not necessarily mean that the person's death is important enough to cover in a separate article. We have to go by whether there is enough independently sourced content to justify a separate article. Currently two-thirds of the sources cited here are just being used to provide a (tedious, in my opinion) list of world leaders who have offered condolences. Under normal circumstances I would have expected many world leaders to show up for Gorbachev's funeral, but I suspect many of those who might have done so will skip it to avoid traveling to Russia during the war in Ukraine. I will hopefully be able to offer a specific recommendation before this AfD ends. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge what's worthwhile to Mikhail Gorbachev, at least for the time being. Right now there's not really anything to justify a separate article for this. If this becomes something that receives sustained and lasting coverage this can be reconsidered. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The info available right now fits very neatly into the death box in the main Gorbachev page. There's nothing expanded on in the Gorbachev death page that couldn't easily be carried over or discarded. Until more unique/notable info is out, there's not really any need for a death page that fits easily into the main page without needing to be summarized. Shredlordsupreme ( talk) 2:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYSTAL prevents me from predicting what my recommendation will be when this AfD closes. Joke More seriously, I think any useful content could be merged to Mikhail Gorbachev (and if there is none at closure, a redirect is fine because it's a subtopic that someone might plausibly search for given Mikhail's importance). Right now, only the reactions section would be too clunky to include in the death section of the main article; I don't consider that enough to justify a separate article (per above, boils down to X expresses condolences). — Danre98( talk^ contribs) 04:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep without prejudice (was Merge per WP:NLIST). This article is actually a misnamed list. The title would suggest that it is an article about an event, when in reality it is a list of reactions of world leaders and governments to that event. THat is not a noteworthy list. If someone can edit the page to even suggest that this is an independently noteworthy event, I am willing to reconsider this vote. De Guerre ( talk) 06:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    • There are discussions on whether he gets state funeral and who of the western leaders or acquaintances will come. This is additional content and coverage that shows independent noteworthiness. Kirill C1 ( talk) 11:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
      For what it's worth, I do strongly suspect that Mr Gorbachev's funeral will be noteworthy, in part because of the geopolitical situation that is surrounding it at the moment. Many other world leaders have a "death and funeral" article. I am still not seeing any justification that Mr Gorbachev's death, specifically, is noteworthy independent of his life and legacy. At the very least, the focus and of this article should be reconsidered. De Guerre ( talk) 01:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
      Ur first sentence is an incredibly good point which I hadn't considered before, however I'm still not changing my vote cos we don't know if that's gonna be the case for sure. If it is then I still wouldn't think the subject of his death is noteworthy. I may - although weakly - think the subject of his funeral is noteworthy if ur predictions are true and may support retitling and restructuring this article to be about only his funeral. But then again, that depends on how much general discussion will relate his funeral to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I doubt there will be enough comparisons made to sustain an entire article, and I'm guessing the comparisons could just be limited to the section about his death and funeral on the Mikhail Gorbachev page. If I'm right that documenting the comparisons can be kept there, then I still support this article being deleted. Stephanie921 ( talk) 01:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I am changing my vote to "speedy keep without prejudice" because the title and focus of the article has changed. Active cleanup is always a valid response to an AfD. I now believe the article should stay while it is being cleaned up ( WP:NLIST still applies), until at least after the funeral, at which point we can reconsider the possibility of deletion if it seems appropriate. De Guerre ( talk) 16:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If Borka gets one so must Misha. Moreover, Gorbachev's death has occured in a much more turbulent time in Russian and world history than Yeltsin's in 2007. -- Spafky ( talk) 09:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    See WP:WHATABOUT. Just because Boris Yeltsin has a death page does not mean Gorbachev should therefore have one, especially when the content does not add much more than what is already on the main article on Gorbachev. Under that logic, one could argue against Gorbachev having a death page as his predecessor, Konstantin Chernenko, does not have one, as mentioned above. As mentioned below by @ Jayron32, "the only relevant thing is this article, and how Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines instruct us to deal with it." Willsteve2000 ( talk) 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Without Gorbachev there would be no Yeltsin. Chernenko was an old decrepit who spent his year in theoretical power dying and missing politburo meetings, and Gorbachev was already largely running things the facto in 1984-85. Spafky ( talk) 08:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to main article, which can adequately cover the death without requiring a distinct subarticle; the excessive list of reactions can be pared back or completely removed per WP:TRIVIA. -- Jayron 32 10:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    KeepSince this has opened, additional sources have come to light, indicating that this is currently sufficiently able to be developed enough to stand apart from the article it was split from. -- Jayron 32 12:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't think that the list of reactions is really WP:TRIVIA. It could maybe converted into prose, but I don't see a problem with it as long as it's reliable sourced. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    The individual reactions of every country that can be found are generally not relevant to the overall narrative of a person's life. Lists of dozens and dozens of world leaders expressing sorrow is not something that generally is important in the narrative of a person's life; certainly they don't occur in any other biographies outside of Wikipedia, so they can't be terribly relevant when writing biographies anywhere else in the world. Why here? -- Jayron 32 11:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    "The individual reactions of every country that can be found are generally not relevant to the overall narrative of a person's life" - but reactions to his death are relevant to the article about Gorbachev's death and corresponding narrative. Kirill C1 ( talk) 12:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    This article is just a split out from the article Mikhail Gorbachev. Per WP:SUMMARY, "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic" The list of reactions is an artificial addition to beef up this subject to make it appear to be necessary to split it off from the main Gorbachev article. If it were not so artificially added to add excessive and unneeded detail to the subject, it would fit fine at the Mikhail Gorbachev article. -- Jayron 32 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think this is fine. It obviously meets WP:GNG given the amount of coverage received, so it's more a question of whether it's a WP:NOPAGE case for merging into the parent. I would say no. If we're going to have Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush then it makes sense to also have one for Gorbachev, who was a very superpower influential leader and in a similar vein. Even if he doesn't get a state funeral, that's a talking point in itself given the ambivalent status the modern Russian government has towards him...  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I will point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale for anything. There can be any number of reasons why something else exists somewhere else. Maybe it's not a good analog for this article. Or maybe it shouldn't exist either; the mistakes of the past do not bind us to continue to make mistakes in the present. Or maybe there are reasons for that thing to exist that don't exist in this case. There are a near infinite number of reasons why that article does exist, and basically none of them are relevant to this article. The only relevant thing is this article, and how policy and guidelines instruct us to deal with it. -- Jayron 32 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Mentioning other articles is worth because it counters argument that it barely has prose - you can see from other articles perspective of growth. Some other similar articles also rebuff WP:NOTNEWS argument, having reliable sources over a long period. Kirill C1 ( talk) 15:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    That article has enough prose. This one, not yet. Not a valid comparison. Maybe this subject will reach the point will have enough to be split off from the main article, but not yet, and we cannot reliably predict the future. -- Jayron 32 15:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I would argue that WP:OSE isn't a universally bad argument. If stuff is designated as good articles or featured articles or some other type of award/distinction, it should be a role model.
    On the question of deleting this article, I'm neutral. I elaborated more in my reply, but the TLDR is if there's a state funeral, and if there are notable guests, or for some reason the cause of death in itself is pretty notable (like drugs or a rare cancer), keep; otherwise merge and anchor. InvadingInvader ( talk) 19:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    The reason why it is a bad argument is that people use it based on spurious reasons. Vanishingly close to 100% of the time it is used, it falls into one of two kinds of comparisons. Type 1) "An other article exists (links to a horrifying and obviously terrible article that has no business existing, but somehow has not yet been deleted or fixed) so we have to keep this article under discussion"; or Type 2) "An other article exists (links to an article which has some minor superficial point of commonality with the article under discussion) so we have to keep this article under discussion". Neither is a valid rationale for anything. The fact that it is possible to make a cogent OSE argument is true only in the sense that it is also possible to win the lottery: Surely it happens, but counting on it as a matter of expectation is unwise. In general, arguments should be limited to how the current article under discussion does, or does not, comply with various policies, guidelines, and other best practices. If we limited our discussions to ONLY that subject matter, we'd have far better, more productive discussions. -- Jayron 32 14:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral This is definitely something that should be merged in most other cases since this isn't an assassination (see the recent Assasination of Shinzo Abe as an example), but Gorbachev's death spurred numerous reactions. We have articles already on the deaths (and for some state funerals) for Nelson Mandela, Kim Il-sung, Michael Jackson, and many others.
    I would wait until a notable funeral happens, if it does happen. I would recommend modeling this article after the deaths of Nelson Mandela and Kim Il-sung. If no funeral happens though, I would merge into Gorbachev's main article and redirect this page to an anchor on such article. InvadingInvader ( talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this one and delete all other Death of Super Important President. The death itself was not notable, he was an old man in his 90s, not assassinated by aliens or spies. Artem.G ( talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but change title, but turn into a "death and legacy of Gorbachev" article - considering the impact he had on the world and how heavily debated his impact was (esp. in different regions), there might be enough sources and stuff worth creating an entire page of "Legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev" and merging more in-depth details about his depth would fit in better in a page like that. NHCLS ( talk) 20:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    This could definitely work as an idea, and I would back it, but I'm afraid that other editors would not be favored to this idea. InvadingInvader ( talk) 22:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Elijah and Cooluncle55 in particular. Also, in view of polarised opinions on his legacy and in view of the current geopolitical situation, reactions to his death are worth including. As will be the list of foreign attendees to the funeral, if any are allowed to come. Aridd ( talk) 20:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lot's of people seem to be equating the importance of the subject with notability of his death. Of course Mikhail Gorbachev was extremely influential on the history of the world in the late 20th century, but that doesn't necessarily make his death notable, and there hasn't been enough time since it happened for the event to be notable. What secondary sources (i.e. not primary news reports) have been written about this death of a 91-year-old after a long illness? And, before anyone accuses me of pro-Western bias (which is a strange accusation to make here as Gorbachev was more highly regarded in the West than anywhere else) I would support deletion of articles about the deaths of any Western politicians that don't have proper secondary sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't understand ur "don't have proper secondary sources" point @ User:Phil Bridger. Would u mind elaborating? Stephanie921 ( talk) 04:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Every reference is a primary source (i.e. a news report) of his death. Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah ok, cheers guvna! Stephanie921 ( talk) 07:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Phil Bridger: a news report is not a primary source. It is a secondary source.
See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Of course news reports of an event are primary sources for that event. That's History 101. In this case such reports may include secondary source material about Gorbachev himself or events surrounding his life, but the article up for deletion is Death of Mikhail Gorbachev, not Mikhail Gorbachev or Fall of Communism or Break-up of the Soviet Union. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed, but one needs to be a little more precise here. A news report purely of Gorbachev's death would be primary, a news report quoting people commenting on the significance of his life, detailing the effects of his policies and legacy are secondary because they are inherently analytical of his life in toto. Almost all the coverage to date has been a mixture of the two; reflections on his life as a result of his death. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Not so, @ Phil Bridger. A significant component of news report is secondary, reporting the various primary sources: official statements, notices, tweets, local media etc. In a case like this where the death and funeral are remote from the locations of most news media, actual on-the-ground primary reporting will be a small component of most news reports. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
PS @ Phil Bridger: if you genuinely believe that all news reports are primary sources, then you should seek the mass-tagging of articles which use news reports as sources, and the mass deletion of articles which do not have sufficient non-primary sources.
My guess is that maybe a quarter or a half of all articles would go in that purge. It might not be a bad idea, as the clearout would lead us towards a much smaller Wikipedia based on scholarly sources ... but until that principle is broadly agreed, the case for applying it here looks highly selective. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
news reports of an event are primary sources for that event - That can sometimes be true see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more info. Generally, a newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. WP:INTERVIEWS also supports the idea of analysis and commentary as secondary content. Remember, the same source can be both primary and secondary, depending what is being cited. -- Green C 05:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:BrownHairedGirl Yh, I said I think articles about the deaths and/or funerals of any politician shouldn't be automatically added, and would be in favour of the ones that already exist being deleted - unless they were notable for reasons that actually pertained to death and/or funeral, and not only the person themselves (like Willsteve2000 said). I.e. I'd be okay with keeping the article Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin because many victims of his cult of personality who attended the funeral died in a human crush during it. Some other editors expressed support for generally deleting articles which covered unotable death and/or state funerals of politicians Stephanie921 ( talk) 12:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Stephanie921: your comment might have had some credibility if you had refrained from POV commentary: cult of personality is a pejorative term applied to popular leaders who are disapproved of. (No, I am not in any way a fan of Stalin, but there were also cults of personality around e.g. Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan, de Gaulle, Gandhi).
More broadly, funerals are a moment when people sum up the life and career of the deceased. The news reports of those assessments are an important record of how the deceased was viewed at the time of their death, esp by heads of state and of government, but also by opinion writers. I see nothing in our notability guidelines to require that we assess only coverage of the actual events on the ground at the funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think @ Stephanie921's use of the term "cult of personality" was intended to be POV commentary or pejorative in nature, I think she was just referring to the idolization and worship of Stalin among the Soviet populace (see Joseph Stalin's cult of personality). Willsteve2000 ( talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Yh, thanks Will. Also my pronouns are she/her :) Stephanie921 ( talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Updated :) Willsteve2000 ( talk) 19:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Willsteve2000: the POV commentary is entirely irrelevant to the discussion and redundant to the substantive point which @ Stephanie921 was trying to make, viz. that people were killed at the funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ BrownHairedGirl You're the one who mentioned it; if it's irrelevant and redundant, then why did you bring it up? Willsteve2000 ( talk) 02:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Willsteve2000: you are demonstrably wrong.
I did not bring it up; Stephanie921 was the editor who brought it up. [1] I responded to criticise her use of POV commentary.
In future, please read before commenting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ BrownHairedGirl I did read the section, did you? You're the one who claimed that the use of the phrase "cult of personality" was POV commentary and pejorative, to which I said that it wasn't the case and was instead a reference to Joseph Stalin's cult of personality. You then replied that the POV commentary is irrelevant and redundant. But if the alleged POV commentary is irrelevant and redundant, then why would you bring it up by stating that "your comment might have had some credibility if you had refrained from POV commentary: 'cult of personality' is a pejorative term...?"
You mentioned it in your comment. You brought it up. While @ Stephanie921 used the term "cult of personality," it was you who brought up it being POV commentary (which, again, I was responding that it was not), and then later said that "the POV commentary is entirely irrelevant... and redundant..." So why mention it, even to criticize it, if it's so irrelevant and redundant?
In future, please read before commenting. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 03:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Wow. Just wow. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:BrownHairedGirl my use of 'cult of personality' wasn't POV commentary, since it has a sourced article. I think u misunderstood what cult of personality means. It's not a pejorative applied to people the user doesn't like but rather an observance of how their fans view them, which has academic use. However @ User:Willsteve2000 if BrownHairedGirl wants to criticize people for inserting POV commentary - whether they were or not - then she can. I think it was a good thing she stood up for what she believed in, and using her words against her like u did when you said "please read" is rude and unconstructive Stephanie921 ( talk) 06:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Stephanie921 Yeah, I guess I was just bothered when it was insinuated by @ BrownHairedGirl that I didn't read the section before commenting. For the record, when I said that the alleged POV commentary was brought up, I meant that it was mentioned by the user, not that the user said the commentary in question. I did not intend for my remarks to come across as rude and unconstructive, and I apologize if they did. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 06:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
And what did u mean by "death and state funeral of foo"? Stephanie921 ( talk) 12:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
" foo" is a placeholder name. Read it as "insert any name here". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh yh, thank you! Stephanie921 ( talk) 06:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Just because there will be a state funeral doesn't mean it justifies keeping an article. I'm not opposed to an article if it has way more information than it has now. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Gorbachev death news is very popular and important for now, why must be removed even though a less popular character than him has an article on his death. I think even if Putin death still have to make an article on his death even though many are hated from his country to the whole world. KenzoHarits56 ( talk) 12:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — Gorbachev's funeral has occurred. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Not only that. Thousands went out on the streets to pay tributes, virtually all media hold it as one of the main news today ( BBC, CNN, Deutsche Welle etc.), but people here still think that his death isn’t notable at all.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 17:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    No one is arguing that "his death isn’t notable at all," nor are they arguing that his death isn't worth discussing on Wikipedia. This AfD discussion is over whether it deserves its own page. Yes, it made the news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper; something getting a news article about it does not mean it should automatically get a Wikipedia article when the content of such an article could already be included in the main Mikhail Gorbachev article. Right now, there just isn't enough content regarding Gorbachev's death and funeral to justify having an entire separate article about it, and even now that the funeral is finished, there is still no additional information in this article that can't just be included in his main article. If this changes, then a separate article can and should be created, but as of now, a merge to the main article with a redirect left to the death section will suffice. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 17:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    You have a list of articles documenting deaths of other people above, so you're encouraged to start nominating articles for deletion. The fist should perhaps be this one because it's a mere list of reactions and documents the death of a person who was below Gorbachev in the Soviet political hierarchy. Alternatively, it's much better to expand this one.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please don't do that (make lists and encourage deletions to make a point). It only takes a minute to nominate something. You asked for it you'll get it. It is disruptive and POINTY. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Green C 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ GreenC: Please read my last sentence before blaming me. I know very well what yoi’re talking about.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:Sundostund Personally I think he's more important but I am in favour of deletion for different reasons Stephanie921 ( talk) 22:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - a major event with this much coverage certainly passes WP:N. – Handoto ( talk)
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Mikhail_Gorbachev&oldid=1137775017"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. and none is going to emerge while his death is literally in the news. Cases are made on both sides (for this purpose, keeping keep/merge together as in preserve vs. not preserving the content) from established editors, and even discounting SPAs and non-policy based !votes, there does not even appear to be a forming consensus. While I do not see a scenario where the content is not included,discussion on where the information is best presented will be helpful tothe reader and could possibly lead to better resolution, including Legacy, Funeral information referenced below. Star Mississippi 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Death of Mikhail Gorbachev

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

Death of Mikhail Gorbachev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion is proposed due to the page violating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. While the death of Gorbachev is newsworthy, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and his passing is not notable enough to warrant an entire separate article. Most Wikipedia articles covering someone's death do so as a result of the death itself warranting a separate article, such as an assassination/murder, or if the death was part of or led to a major event, such as the Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin; this death does not fall under the former, nor does it - as of now at least - fall under the latter. In addition, the article adds very little additional content to what is already included in the article on Mikhail Gorbachev. This article should therefore be deleted and content on Gorbachev's death be added to the main article on Mikhail Gorbachev instead. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 02:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

support - his death is not worthy of an article by itself, and certainly not this quickly Plumeater2 ( talk) 02:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - if presidents of the United States are able to have pages which discuss their deaths, I don't see how Gorbachev can't. Someguy432 ( talk) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:WHATABOUT. — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 17:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — If you want to point out examples, plenty of influential figures, be it Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, George H. W. Bush, Winston Churchill, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all have pages on their death. The only difference between Gorbachev and these figures is that he doesn't have a state funeral, or a funeral at all, at least as of now, but a state funeral should not define whether or not a page is created on his death. I'm aware the political climate in Russia is very tense, especially towards Gorbachev and his policies, but I would not be surprised if Gorbachev had a funeral. A unanimous ITN nomination with the strongest support for a page I've ever seen is enough for me to say that this is something that warrants a page. I don't see the point of an AfD when there will likely be a funeral or some sort of service, and when the topic itself is growing in scale. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at this stage his death seems to be notable. Further, good points have been raised about Western-Bloc bias. Finally WP:NOTNEWS isn't intended to stop articles on current notable events and indeed encourages editors to "develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 03:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or delete. In addition to the nominator's rationale, this is WP:ROUTINE. WP:NEVENTS lists "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths ...) ... are usually not notable", so this is pretty clear-cut to me. Unless we have conspiracy theories, some elaborate funeral, public protests, or heck, even a cause of death, there is nothing here that cannot simply be merged to Mikhail Gorbachev. Toadspike ( talk) 02:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Sorry to disagree but this in not a WP:ROUTINE event. Gorbachev's impact on the world since before and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union is incalculable. This is a huge event and many lament his passing, as demonstrated by the multiplicity of reliable sources in the reference section. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Steve Quinn, I agree. But there is a wider problem here: WP:ROUTINE can be applied to anything, but is used selectively.
If we applied it consistently, we'd delete vast chunks of Wikipedia.
Person elected to public office? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually gets lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Football team wins match? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Big company releases new product? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually gets lots of media coverage. Yawn.
New law enacted? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Criminal commits crime, gets convicted. Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Musician records song, gets in the charts. Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
And so on. I have seen some utterly absurd uses of WP:ROUTINE, and this article is one of them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I thought the people who preceded Gorbachev were Dan and Frank Carney? ( this is a joke ) Stephanie921 ( talk) 04:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
LOL! Well said. 43.250.158.176 ( talk) 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Lmao ty :) Stephanie921 ( talk) 10:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I understand the concerns about recentism and whataboutism, but Mikhail Gorbachev’s death is enormously important, his death marks the transition from the old Soviet world from living memory. The death of Gorbachev is certainly going to be an event people will want to study or learn about, an article is appropriate. R. J. Dockery ( talk) 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think we can say that for sure @ User:R. J. Dockery. People's political beliefs don't revolve around this one man, and even if it did cause metaphysical political change - which I'm not sure it will, since ur point is more about what this represents symbolically, something more suited to an opinion piece than Wikipedia even if ur right - that'd be more about political changes that happen after his death rather than his death itself. It'd be related to other political beliefs that were systemic before his death - or political beliefs opposed to those systems - which would still be about ideas rather than this one event. Anyway, I'd argue the Pizza Hut and Louis Vuitton ads he did are more representative of the Post-fall transition than this Stephanie921 ( talk) 04:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
There are lots of people alive who remember the old Soviet world. There just isn't anyone alive who was the Soviet head of state or head of the Soviet Communist Party. (There are even two people alive who served as Premier of the Soviet Union.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:Metropolitan90 I don't understand what ur trying to say, could u elaborate please? Stephanie921 ( talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Sorry, my response was meant to be directed toward R.J. Dockery, not to you. I meant that Gorbachev's death does not mean that the USSR has been lost to "living memory" (the memory of people now living). I don't disagree with what you wrote above. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah okay, thank you Stephanie921 ( talk) 03:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Per what? There's lots of shit above, including delete !votes. ~Styyx Talk? 06:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Styyx. Asking a editor to elaborate is one thing, but I don't think that it's particularly constructive to call people's contributions 'shit'. (Re-adding this after another user deleted it) Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:Tomorrow and tomorrow I think you misunderstood Styyx. I think they were using shit as a synonym to 'stuff'. I don't think Styyx was being rude. Idk ur pronouns btw Styyx so feel free to tell me and I'll correct this msg if necessary Stephanie921 ( talk) 06:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Stephanie921, thank you for pointing out - reading back I realise it could also have been intended like you say. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 06:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The person being notable doesn't make the death itself notable. 61.1.20.158 ( talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
No @ User:KyleRGiggs The hospital said he died of a "long and prolonged illness".
So there is no any sudden reason there. Then WP:NOTE. KyleRGiggs ( talk) 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge: As with the above reply, the death isn't noteworthy as it wasn't done by murder. Check with other world leader's deaths such as Suharto and Chiang Kai-shek who were also leaders in around the same time which don't have a dedicated page about their death so I see no reason as to why his death warrants a page, otherwise we would have to give every ex-leader of every nation a death page regardless of how they died. - NHPluto ( talk) 10:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also, if we were to keep this article separate, we would need to make it like an actual article. That's the main problem. It would be very nice if there was more in this article. This is the point of Wikipedia. Making an ACCURATE and DETAILED (if possible) free encyclopedia free of any influence, not just "so uh this person died". I hope i didn't say anything wrong with this. Itagam ( talk) 10:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Itagam, I agree this article could be improved, however you say this is "the main problem". Just a reminder that as per WP:ARTN, article content does not determine notability. Whether or not the article is well fleshed out is not relevant to if it should be deleted. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 11:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ah well, i am sorry. Itagam ( talk) 11:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge - Maybe if his death was in some way noteworthy (i.e. it was an assasination or a rare disease etc etc.) it would make sense but it seems it was an uneventful passing. This article is a blatent example of Recentism. FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 12:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The artcle has significant coverage, it can be expanded from other languages pages and be used for the blurb on main page. The size of main artilce is so big it justifies existence of standalone article. Kirill C1 ( talk) 12:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
There is nothing "obvious" about it. We have Mikhail Gorbachev and that's where the coverage belongs. Graham Beards ( talk) 12:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
There seems to be consensus on creating articles about deaths of influential people, see Thatcher, George H. W. Bush, Mandela, so creation of this article is not something extraordinary. Kirill C1 ( talk) 12:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Wrong! There is no consensus **whatsoever** that influential people are entitled to get articles about their deaths. There *is* a consensus that when there is significant information about the circumstances of the death and a major funeral, there may be enough content to justify a split of the article to cover that. That may be the case here in several days, but this article is premature and you should not spew nonsense. Reywas92 Talk 20:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:Reywas92 Please don't tell people things like "you should not spew nonsense". @ User:Кирилл С1 wasn't intentionally trying to say a consensus that didn't exist, and they (idk ur pronouns Кирилл, feel free to tell me and I'll correct this msg if I need to) weren't even saying there was a consensus. They were just saying there seems to be one. Even if they thought a consensus existed, they could have genuinely thought that but just have made a mistake, and it's not constructive to accuse them of spewing nonsense rather than just telling them they're wrong and why. Stephanie921 ( talk) 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Also, consensus is implied given the number of articles covering the deaths of highly notable persons. Consensus is a reasonable assumption at this point because editors have not gathered together and deleted such articles.--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Mikhail Gorbachev no doubt changed the course of history for not only Russia, but the entire world. If this doesn't warrant a separate article for his death, I don't know what does. 2600:1009:B124:9728:38C9:ECA:FF9C:2557 ( talk) 12:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Per @ FishandChipper, notable person ≠ notable death. No one is denying that Gorbachev was an important person, but that does not automatically warrant a separate article for his death unless the death itself was noteworthy (such as assassination, etc.). See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 14:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The parent article is already too long to accommodate all details about his life, so separating it into sub-articles is definitely the right way to go. Also, the numerous reactions to his death and obituaries published in reliable sources make this notable enough.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 13:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Majority of the "reactions" to his death boil down to "____ gave condolences" which isn't exactly that noteworthy. And a large majority of articles on dead people are much longer than Gorbachev's and they only have a death section too. Are you saying that every single person who dies should get an article about who was sad that they died? FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 15:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you think the article is shorter than other death articles, you’re encouraged to expand it with content from reliable sources (there are lots because this has been top news for almost a day). As for whether every single person who dies should get an article, yes if the death receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources as this one.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 18:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    What i meant is that Gorbachev's MAIN article is shorter than some others with only a death section, not this article. And also literally every single actor/musician/politician etc etc etc's death gets coverage in reliable sources nowadays so singling out Gorbachev's is pointless. FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 12:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
While the article will definitely be expanded, it will need far more information than it has now to warrant an article. The Ronald Regan death article is far longer. And one of the exceptions to article about natural deaths. 61.1.22.69 ( talk) 06:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Merge Gorbachev was a very important person during the Cold War and ended it, gave people rights when the Soviet Union existed, and others. Just like the articles of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, ect, these people were very important just like Gorbachev. But since there is no funeral for Gorbachev yet, then this should be merged into the main article. Otherwise, this article should still be kept until further notice. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf ( talk) 22:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep under the rationale that other heads of state have death pages. I would've voted for Merge otherwise. Liliana ( UwU) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    See WP:WHATABOUT. Just because other heads of state have death pages does not mean Gorbachev should therefore have one, especially when the content does not add much more than what is already on the main article on Gorbachev. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 01:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My inclination is to recommend delete, because just being an important person does not necessarily mean that the person's death is important enough to cover in a separate article. We have to go by whether there is enough independently sourced content to justify a separate article. Currently two-thirds of the sources cited here are just being used to provide a (tedious, in my opinion) list of world leaders who have offered condolences. Under normal circumstances I would have expected many world leaders to show up for Gorbachev's funeral, but I suspect many of those who might have done so will skip it to avoid traveling to Russia during the war in Ukraine. I will hopefully be able to offer a specific recommendation before this AfD ends. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge what's worthwhile to Mikhail Gorbachev, at least for the time being. Right now there's not really anything to justify a separate article for this. If this becomes something that receives sustained and lasting coverage this can be reconsidered. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The info available right now fits very neatly into the death box in the main Gorbachev page. There's nothing expanded on in the Gorbachev death page that couldn't easily be carried over or discarded. Until more unique/notable info is out, there's not really any need for a death page that fits easily into the main page without needing to be summarized. Shredlordsupreme ( talk) 2:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYSTAL prevents me from predicting what my recommendation will be when this AfD closes. Joke More seriously, I think any useful content could be merged to Mikhail Gorbachev (and if there is none at closure, a redirect is fine because it's a subtopic that someone might plausibly search for given Mikhail's importance). Right now, only the reactions section would be too clunky to include in the death section of the main article; I don't consider that enough to justify a separate article (per above, boils down to X expresses condolences). — Danre98( talk^ contribs) 04:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep without prejudice (was Merge per WP:NLIST). This article is actually a misnamed list. The title would suggest that it is an article about an event, when in reality it is a list of reactions of world leaders and governments to that event. THat is not a noteworthy list. If someone can edit the page to even suggest that this is an independently noteworthy event, I am willing to reconsider this vote. De Guerre ( talk) 06:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    • There are discussions on whether he gets state funeral and who of the western leaders or acquaintances will come. This is additional content and coverage that shows independent noteworthiness. Kirill C1 ( talk) 11:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
      For what it's worth, I do strongly suspect that Mr Gorbachev's funeral will be noteworthy, in part because of the geopolitical situation that is surrounding it at the moment. Many other world leaders have a "death and funeral" article. I am still not seeing any justification that Mr Gorbachev's death, specifically, is noteworthy independent of his life and legacy. At the very least, the focus and of this article should be reconsidered. De Guerre ( talk) 01:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
      Ur first sentence is an incredibly good point which I hadn't considered before, however I'm still not changing my vote cos we don't know if that's gonna be the case for sure. If it is then I still wouldn't think the subject of his death is noteworthy. I may - although weakly - think the subject of his funeral is noteworthy if ur predictions are true and may support retitling and restructuring this article to be about only his funeral. But then again, that depends on how much general discussion will relate his funeral to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I doubt there will be enough comparisons made to sustain an entire article, and I'm guessing the comparisons could just be limited to the section about his death and funeral on the Mikhail Gorbachev page. If I'm right that documenting the comparisons can be kept there, then I still support this article being deleted. Stephanie921 ( talk) 01:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I am changing my vote to "speedy keep without prejudice" because the title and focus of the article has changed. Active cleanup is always a valid response to an AfD. I now believe the article should stay while it is being cleaned up ( WP:NLIST still applies), until at least after the funeral, at which point we can reconsider the possibility of deletion if it seems appropriate. De Guerre ( talk) 16:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If Borka gets one so must Misha. Moreover, Gorbachev's death has occured in a much more turbulent time in Russian and world history than Yeltsin's in 2007. -- Spafky ( talk) 09:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    See WP:WHATABOUT. Just because Boris Yeltsin has a death page does not mean Gorbachev should therefore have one, especially when the content does not add much more than what is already on the main article on Gorbachev. Under that logic, one could argue against Gorbachev having a death page as his predecessor, Konstantin Chernenko, does not have one, as mentioned above. As mentioned below by @ Jayron32, "the only relevant thing is this article, and how Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines instruct us to deal with it." Willsteve2000 ( talk) 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Without Gorbachev there would be no Yeltsin. Chernenko was an old decrepit who spent his year in theoretical power dying and missing politburo meetings, and Gorbachev was already largely running things the facto in 1984-85. Spafky ( talk) 08:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to main article, which can adequately cover the death without requiring a distinct subarticle; the excessive list of reactions can be pared back or completely removed per WP:TRIVIA. -- Jayron 32 10:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    KeepSince this has opened, additional sources have come to light, indicating that this is currently sufficiently able to be developed enough to stand apart from the article it was split from. -- Jayron 32 12:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't think that the list of reactions is really WP:TRIVIA. It could maybe converted into prose, but I don't see a problem with it as long as it's reliable sourced. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    The individual reactions of every country that can be found are generally not relevant to the overall narrative of a person's life. Lists of dozens and dozens of world leaders expressing sorrow is not something that generally is important in the narrative of a person's life; certainly they don't occur in any other biographies outside of Wikipedia, so they can't be terribly relevant when writing biographies anywhere else in the world. Why here? -- Jayron 32 11:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    "The individual reactions of every country that can be found are generally not relevant to the overall narrative of a person's life" - but reactions to his death are relevant to the article about Gorbachev's death and corresponding narrative. Kirill C1 ( talk) 12:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    This article is just a split out from the article Mikhail Gorbachev. Per WP:SUMMARY, "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic" The list of reactions is an artificial addition to beef up this subject to make it appear to be necessary to split it off from the main Gorbachev article. If it were not so artificially added to add excessive and unneeded detail to the subject, it would fit fine at the Mikhail Gorbachev article. -- Jayron 32 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think this is fine. It obviously meets WP:GNG given the amount of coverage received, so it's more a question of whether it's a WP:NOPAGE case for merging into the parent. I would say no. If we're going to have Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush then it makes sense to also have one for Gorbachev, who was a very superpower influential leader and in a similar vein. Even if he doesn't get a state funeral, that's a talking point in itself given the ambivalent status the modern Russian government has towards him...  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I will point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale for anything. There can be any number of reasons why something else exists somewhere else. Maybe it's not a good analog for this article. Or maybe it shouldn't exist either; the mistakes of the past do not bind us to continue to make mistakes in the present. Or maybe there are reasons for that thing to exist that don't exist in this case. There are a near infinite number of reasons why that article does exist, and basically none of them are relevant to this article. The only relevant thing is this article, and how policy and guidelines instruct us to deal with it. -- Jayron 32 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Mentioning other articles is worth because it counters argument that it barely has prose - you can see from other articles perspective of growth. Some other similar articles also rebuff WP:NOTNEWS argument, having reliable sources over a long period. Kirill C1 ( talk) 15:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    That article has enough prose. This one, not yet. Not a valid comparison. Maybe this subject will reach the point will have enough to be split off from the main article, but not yet, and we cannot reliably predict the future. -- Jayron 32 15:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I would argue that WP:OSE isn't a universally bad argument. If stuff is designated as good articles or featured articles or some other type of award/distinction, it should be a role model.
    On the question of deleting this article, I'm neutral. I elaborated more in my reply, but the TLDR is if there's a state funeral, and if there are notable guests, or for some reason the cause of death in itself is pretty notable (like drugs or a rare cancer), keep; otherwise merge and anchor. InvadingInvader ( talk) 19:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    The reason why it is a bad argument is that people use it based on spurious reasons. Vanishingly close to 100% of the time it is used, it falls into one of two kinds of comparisons. Type 1) "An other article exists (links to a horrifying and obviously terrible article that has no business existing, but somehow has not yet been deleted or fixed) so we have to keep this article under discussion"; or Type 2) "An other article exists (links to an article which has some minor superficial point of commonality with the article under discussion) so we have to keep this article under discussion". Neither is a valid rationale for anything. The fact that it is possible to make a cogent OSE argument is true only in the sense that it is also possible to win the lottery: Surely it happens, but counting on it as a matter of expectation is unwise. In general, arguments should be limited to how the current article under discussion does, or does not, comply with various policies, guidelines, and other best practices. If we limited our discussions to ONLY that subject matter, we'd have far better, more productive discussions. -- Jayron 32 14:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral This is definitely something that should be merged in most other cases since this isn't an assassination (see the recent Assasination of Shinzo Abe as an example), but Gorbachev's death spurred numerous reactions. We have articles already on the deaths (and for some state funerals) for Nelson Mandela, Kim Il-sung, Michael Jackson, and many others.
    I would wait until a notable funeral happens, if it does happen. I would recommend modeling this article after the deaths of Nelson Mandela and Kim Il-sung. If no funeral happens though, I would merge into Gorbachev's main article and redirect this page to an anchor on such article. InvadingInvader ( talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this one and delete all other Death of Super Important President. The death itself was not notable, he was an old man in his 90s, not assassinated by aliens or spies. Artem.G ( talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but change title, but turn into a "death and legacy of Gorbachev" article - considering the impact he had on the world and how heavily debated his impact was (esp. in different regions), there might be enough sources and stuff worth creating an entire page of "Legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev" and merging more in-depth details about his depth would fit in better in a page like that. NHCLS ( talk) 20:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    This could definitely work as an idea, and I would back it, but I'm afraid that other editors would not be favored to this idea. InvadingInvader ( talk) 22:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Elijah and Cooluncle55 in particular. Also, in view of polarised opinions on his legacy and in view of the current geopolitical situation, reactions to his death are worth including. As will be the list of foreign attendees to the funeral, if any are allowed to come. Aridd ( talk) 20:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lot's of people seem to be equating the importance of the subject with notability of his death. Of course Mikhail Gorbachev was extremely influential on the history of the world in the late 20th century, but that doesn't necessarily make his death notable, and there hasn't been enough time since it happened for the event to be notable. What secondary sources (i.e. not primary news reports) have been written about this death of a 91-year-old after a long illness? And, before anyone accuses me of pro-Western bias (which is a strange accusation to make here as Gorbachev was more highly regarded in the West than anywhere else) I would support deletion of articles about the deaths of any Western politicians that don't have proper secondary sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't understand ur "don't have proper secondary sources" point @ User:Phil Bridger. Would u mind elaborating? Stephanie921 ( talk) 04:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Every reference is a primary source (i.e. a news report) of his death. Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah ok, cheers guvna! Stephanie921 ( talk) 07:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Phil Bridger: a news report is not a primary source. It is a secondary source.
See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Of course news reports of an event are primary sources for that event. That's History 101. In this case such reports may include secondary source material about Gorbachev himself or events surrounding his life, but the article up for deletion is Death of Mikhail Gorbachev, not Mikhail Gorbachev or Fall of Communism or Break-up of the Soviet Union. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed, but one needs to be a little more precise here. A news report purely of Gorbachev's death would be primary, a news report quoting people commenting on the significance of his life, detailing the effects of his policies and legacy are secondary because they are inherently analytical of his life in toto. Almost all the coverage to date has been a mixture of the two; reflections on his life as a result of his death. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Not so, @ Phil Bridger. A significant component of news report is secondary, reporting the various primary sources: official statements, notices, tweets, local media etc. In a case like this where the death and funeral are remote from the locations of most news media, actual on-the-ground primary reporting will be a small component of most news reports. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
PS @ Phil Bridger: if you genuinely believe that all news reports are primary sources, then you should seek the mass-tagging of articles which use news reports as sources, and the mass deletion of articles which do not have sufficient non-primary sources.
My guess is that maybe a quarter or a half of all articles would go in that purge. It might not be a bad idea, as the clearout would lead us towards a much smaller Wikipedia based on scholarly sources ... but until that principle is broadly agreed, the case for applying it here looks highly selective. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
news reports of an event are primary sources for that event - That can sometimes be true see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more info. Generally, a newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. WP:INTERVIEWS also supports the idea of analysis and commentary as secondary content. Remember, the same source can be both primary and secondary, depending what is being cited. -- Green C 05:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:BrownHairedGirl Yh, I said I think articles about the deaths and/or funerals of any politician shouldn't be automatically added, and would be in favour of the ones that already exist being deleted - unless they were notable for reasons that actually pertained to death and/or funeral, and not only the person themselves (like Willsteve2000 said). I.e. I'd be okay with keeping the article Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin because many victims of his cult of personality who attended the funeral died in a human crush during it. Some other editors expressed support for generally deleting articles which covered unotable death and/or state funerals of politicians Stephanie921 ( talk) 12:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Stephanie921: your comment might have had some credibility if you had refrained from POV commentary: cult of personality is a pejorative term applied to popular leaders who are disapproved of. (No, I am not in any way a fan of Stalin, but there were also cults of personality around e.g. Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan, de Gaulle, Gandhi).
More broadly, funerals are a moment when people sum up the life and career of the deceased. The news reports of those assessments are an important record of how the deceased was viewed at the time of their death, esp by heads of state and of government, but also by opinion writers. I see nothing in our notability guidelines to require that we assess only coverage of the actual events on the ground at the funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think @ Stephanie921's use of the term "cult of personality" was intended to be POV commentary or pejorative in nature, I think she was just referring to the idolization and worship of Stalin among the Soviet populace (see Joseph Stalin's cult of personality). Willsteve2000 ( talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Yh, thanks Will. Also my pronouns are she/her :) Stephanie921 ( talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Updated :) Willsteve2000 ( talk) 19:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Willsteve2000: the POV commentary is entirely irrelevant to the discussion and redundant to the substantive point which @ Stephanie921 was trying to make, viz. that people were killed at the funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ BrownHairedGirl You're the one who mentioned it; if it's irrelevant and redundant, then why did you bring it up? Willsteve2000 ( talk) 02:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Willsteve2000: you are demonstrably wrong.
I did not bring it up; Stephanie921 was the editor who brought it up. [1] I responded to criticise her use of POV commentary.
In future, please read before commenting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ BrownHairedGirl I did read the section, did you? You're the one who claimed that the use of the phrase "cult of personality" was POV commentary and pejorative, to which I said that it wasn't the case and was instead a reference to Joseph Stalin's cult of personality. You then replied that the POV commentary is irrelevant and redundant. But if the alleged POV commentary is irrelevant and redundant, then why would you bring it up by stating that "your comment might have had some credibility if you had refrained from POV commentary: 'cult of personality' is a pejorative term...?"
You mentioned it in your comment. You brought it up. While @ Stephanie921 used the term "cult of personality," it was you who brought up it being POV commentary (which, again, I was responding that it was not), and then later said that "the POV commentary is entirely irrelevant... and redundant..." So why mention it, even to criticize it, if it's so irrelevant and redundant?
In future, please read before commenting. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 03:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Wow. Just wow. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:BrownHairedGirl my use of 'cult of personality' wasn't POV commentary, since it has a sourced article. I think u misunderstood what cult of personality means. It's not a pejorative applied to people the user doesn't like but rather an observance of how their fans view them, which has academic use. However @ User:Willsteve2000 if BrownHairedGirl wants to criticize people for inserting POV commentary - whether they were or not - then she can. I think it was a good thing she stood up for what she believed in, and using her words against her like u did when you said "please read" is rude and unconstructive Stephanie921 ( talk) 06:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Stephanie921 Yeah, I guess I was just bothered when it was insinuated by @ BrownHairedGirl that I didn't read the section before commenting. For the record, when I said that the alleged POV commentary was brought up, I meant that it was mentioned by the user, not that the user said the commentary in question. I did not intend for my remarks to come across as rude and unconstructive, and I apologize if they did. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 06:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
And what did u mean by "death and state funeral of foo"? Stephanie921 ( talk) 12:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
" foo" is a placeholder name. Read it as "insert any name here". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh yh, thank you! Stephanie921 ( talk) 06:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Just because there will be a state funeral doesn't mean it justifies keeping an article. I'm not opposed to an article if it has way more information than it has now. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Gorbachev death news is very popular and important for now, why must be removed even though a less popular character than him has an article on his death. I think even if Putin death still have to make an article on his death even though many are hated from his country to the whole world. KenzoHarits56 ( talk) 12:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — Gorbachev's funeral has occurred. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Not only that. Thousands went out on the streets to pay tributes, virtually all media hold it as one of the main news today ( BBC, CNN, Deutsche Welle etc.), but people here still think that his death isn’t notable at all.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 17:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    No one is arguing that "his death isn’t notable at all," nor are they arguing that his death isn't worth discussing on Wikipedia. This AfD discussion is over whether it deserves its own page. Yes, it made the news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper; something getting a news article about it does not mean it should automatically get a Wikipedia article when the content of such an article could already be included in the main Mikhail Gorbachev article. Right now, there just isn't enough content regarding Gorbachev's death and funeral to justify having an entire separate article about it, and even now that the funeral is finished, there is still no additional information in this article that can't just be included in his main article. If this changes, then a separate article can and should be created, but as of now, a merge to the main article with a redirect left to the death section will suffice. Willsteve2000 ( talk) 17:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    You have a list of articles documenting deaths of other people above, so you're encouraged to start nominating articles for deletion. The fist should perhaps be this one because it's a mere list of reactions and documents the death of a person who was below Gorbachev in the Soviet political hierarchy. Alternatively, it's much better to expand this one.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please don't do that (make lists and encourage deletions to make a point). It only takes a minute to nominate something. You asked for it you'll get it. It is disruptive and POINTY. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Green C 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ GreenC: Please read my last sentence before blaming me. I know very well what yoi’re talking about.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:Sundostund Personally I think he's more important but I am in favour of deletion for different reasons Stephanie921 ( talk) 22:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - a major event with this much coverage certainly passes WP:N. – Handoto ( talk)
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Mikhail_Gorbachev&oldid=1137775017"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE