Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vita Zaverukha

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) at 05:26, 21 December 2022 (→Vita Zaverukha: Closed as keep (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. The arguments to keep are stronger on the substance and also numerically predominant. They rest on the fairly straightforward assertion that this individual meets GNG via coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of their subject. Evidence has been provided for this argument, which has largely not been directly challenged: those arguing to delete instead focus on the content of this coverage, arguing variously that it should not lead to notability per WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME (please note the distinction between this piece of a notability guideline and WP:BLPCRIME, which discusses the BLP policy as it applies to people accused of crimes), or that nothing this individual has done is actually noteworthy. These arguments are acceptable in principle but weak when applied here. Coverage has been provided here of at least two episodes of this person's life, rendering the BLP1E argument weak. Also, some of this coverage predates any accusations of criminal activity; WP:CRIME applies to people only known for their connection to a crime or alleged crime. Finally, we're not in the business of second-guessing why entirely reliable sources decided to cover a topic; we should not be using Russian propaganda as a source, obviously, but we can't ignore coverage that happens to be convenient to said propaganda. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Zaverukha

[edit]

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

Vita Zaverukha (edit | 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)

Procedural per this request and this thread as I protected the redirect. I am entirely neutral and uninvolved. (I will fix the redirect after this posts.) Star Mississippi 17:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC) ETA: to stave off more confusion on why AfD and not RfD, bringing up my comment from below on why this is here with a redirect. the reason this is an AfD on a redirect is two-fold. 1) this conversation needs more eyes than typically attend RfD and 2) there is an article that existed as recently as December 8 so this isn't the typical situation that makes sense at RfD. Probably a little IAR on my end but seemed to be what made sense to me to reach consensus, which is what I think we all want. The article version(s) are visible in the page history for anyone to assess. I remain neutral and uninvolved, this is just an admin nom through a protected page. Star Mississippi 15:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it all together, I believe subject meets WP:GNG. As for merger or redirection, I do not see a suitable target. It is currently redirected to Aidar Battalion, which I do not think is a suitable target for merger, because including all the significant details of her biography would probably be WP:UNDUE in the article about Aidar Battalion. It's that old principle that if a source about Subject A mentions Subject B, that suggests that Subject B is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article about Subject A, but not that Subject A is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article about Subject B. Sources about Zaverukha mention Aidar, which means Aidar is WP:DUE for incusion in the article about Zaverukha, but not that Zaverukha is DUE for inclusion in the article about Aidar. I think this is one where, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, a stand-alone biography article is better than including her biography in another article. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not an RS, but here is a blog post about the Elle article that includes scans of it, posted by the famous French blog Les Crises by fr:Olivier Berruyer. Levivich (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prior version of the article (before redirect) is in the page history. Levivich (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Process note @Oaktree b@Levivich: to clarify, which I should have probably put in opening, the reason this is an AfD on a redirect is two-fold. 1) this conversation needs more eyes than typically attend RfD and 2) there is an article that existed as recently as December 8 so this isn't the typical situation that makes sense at RfD. Probably a little IAR on my end but seemed to be what made sense to me to reach consensus, which is what I think we all want. Star Mississippi 21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: I can't remember any specific examples but I swear there is some precedent for blanking an article over BLP or similar concerns while it's discussed at AFD, like the way we sometimes undelete-and-blank articles while they're at DRV. In this case, given that BLP concerns have been raised, even though I don't personally share those concerns, I think blanking the article (via protecting it as a redirect) while it goes to AFD is a perfectly reasonable precaution to take. Levivich (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I can definitely think of some courtesy blankings although none specifically off the top of my head. I feel like we have more IAR leeway when it comes to BLPs Star Mississippi 22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. Confused, but it make sense now. Article is perhaps controversial, but I still think it's GNG with the sources. I don't think redirect is appropriate either, so we'd have to restore the version that's about 5 down in the article history. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. First a thank you to Levivich for some source analysis. I saw a lot of other sources being proposed for notability, many of which were just in passing. Although I disagree with Levivich that details from "Insurgent women" adds to notability, it's one paragraph in a whole book. I came here to add my reasons why this should be deleted, but I've shifted to a weak keep. First a couple of things, being a neo-nazi or being a Ukrainian fighting the Russian invasion are not grounds for notability. So I think this comes down to the controversy over the Elle article, the robbery trial, and whether between them there's enough to prove notability. To this I would have said no, but together with the second (2022) 20 minutes I shifted to a weak keep. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that one paragraph in a book does not make WP:SIGCOV. However, when you have an academic source stating in its own voice that a person "stands out" and is "notorious", that statement, at least in my view, contributes to notability. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify as I see it's been mentioned again. For passing GNG I'm looking for three good sources that are independent, reliable and have significant coverage. The academic source has the first two, but not the latter. It's a good source for referencing, but I didn't believe it adds to notability for passing GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you for the source analysis. I should have stated that above. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for originally siding delete was WP:BLP1E, as I've seen mentioned elsewhere. Simply put two BLP1E events don't make a BLP. However there has been further coverage after those events, which is why I switched to weak keep. I do however agree with others here that the 'current' (the last version that wasn't a redirect) article is a mess, possibly a BLP issue, but I don't see that as a reason for deletion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is Russian propaganda singled out for special treatment in making someone "not notable" despite ample coverage? We allow plenty of articles based on western propaganda (aka newspapers) that the community would otherwise deem not notable except for the abundance of sourcing available. Notability is met by the sustained coverage on various mediums over a number of years concerning numerous events. Also as Lev says, an academic devoting even a paragraph is persuasive when combined with the other sourcing available. Slywriter (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because Russian propaganda - the fact that she often features heavily in it - is pretty much the only reason she gets mentioned in other coverave. Volunteer Marek 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons listed by Levivich. Other sources that indicate a certain notoriety of the character are:
  • The New York Times:[24] "Vita Zaverukha, had previously posted images of herself on social media making the Nazi salute and wearing a swastika."
  • France 24:[25] "Vita Zaverukha, a 25-year-old Ukrainian female fighter and open neo-Nazi. Press articles mention the fact that ELLE magazine had interviewed Vita Zaverukha for its 14-20 November 2014 issue, presenting her as a Ukrainian volunteer fighter. However, Internet users reacted by publishing photos of her openly showing her sympathy for neo-Nazi groups on social networks. [...] ELLE magazine has apologised, saying its journalists were not aware of Vita Zaveroukha's views at all. Zaveroukha was arrested in May 2015 in Kiev after an attempted robbery at a petrol station and shooting at police officers, according to the Ukrainian media KP."
  • US Department - HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS[26]: "Police detained four suspects, including Vita Zaverukha and three other activists from the violent radical group Unknown Patriot. As of July 6, only one indictment against one suspect for “hooliganism” had been sent to court."
  • Zaborona:[27]
  • LB[28]
  • Espreso TV[29]
  • Gazeta.ua[30]
  • Obozrevatel[31]--Mhorg (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ok so what is this person notable for? They're a neo-Nazi. Ok, unfortunately there are millions of people like that out there in the world. She posted dumb stuff on social media. Uhhh... yeah millions of people like that out there. She fought in one of the make shift militias in Ukraine in 2014 during the first Russian invasion. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians did. She committed an armed robbery. Like, not even murder or something but armed robbery. A crime millions of people have committed. And... that's it. That's the "notability" of this person. Can anyone really say with a straight face that this is a notable article that an encyclopedia should have? If you really think that I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously. Oh and let's add that she was a teenager during most of this stuff.
So. How did she get coverage in the media? Well, at one point Elle magazine ran an article on "women fighting in Ukraine" and stupidly they included her. Someone noted she was a neo nazi and some controversy ensued. This was immediately picked up by Russian propaganda who eats this kind of stuff up and amplified. As a result she got a few other mentions here and there. Aside from that, she gets mentions in some regional sources which basically report on local crimes and arguably she may be a local regional "social media celebrity" (or "notoriety") in Vinnitsia or whatever. There's still absolutely nothing here to make her notable. There's like two sentences in one (reliable) book, out of 100+ pages. There's a photocaption in Bellingcat. There's some coverage of the "Elle controversy" in a couple French outlets. Honestly, in almost any other article this would be WP:UNDUE so it sure as hey isn't notable. Best I can think of what could be done with this material is that it would get a brief mention (merge?) in Elle (magazine) in a controversies section or something. Other than that, there's absolutely no notability here. We have WP:BLP1E for a reason. Volunteer Marek 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, whatever you think of her; she is mentioned in media -> notable. (Btw, it is interesting to note the difference in treatment of this article, and say, the Ghost of Kyiv-article (which is now admitted to being a "myth" (read: lie)). (PS: I think we should keep both articles, as they have figured in media, ( & not because they are significant per se) Huldra (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a WP:BLP about someone who is not a public figure (and is likely not to see ongoing coverage of them in reliable sources) with higly contentious content, so we should be very careful about having and keeping an article about this person. If there is not a clear consensus that this article is support by wikipedia policy, and that its existence doesn't constitute a WP:BLP violation, this article should be deleted. The reliable sources that cover this person are largely passing mentions - per WP:GNG this does not contribute to demonstrating their notability. What coverage of them is substantial is about two different things - appearing in Elle and the scandal from the discovery of her doing a number of neo-nazi things when she was 18, and coverage in relation to a crime.
She does not pass the criteria in WP:CRIME in order to justify having her own article. Besides that, the Elle and neo-nazi stuff, which all constitutes a single scandal/event, also does not pass the criteria in WP:BLP1E for having her own article. It could be argued that if you combine those two aspects of her notability, you can get WP:GNG - I don't think that's the case, I think you're just getting one big WP:BLP violation, on multiple counts. For one, a violation of WP:BLPCRIME - an article about a non public figure with substantial content dedicated their alleged involvment in a crime. A violation of " the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" - making an article about a non-public figure (who is unlikely to have continued coverage of them) which may last as the top result on google for them for the rest of their life about neo-nazi and alleged criminal things they did when they were 18 is a violation of that (Yes, she does not look like a great person, but the purpose of wikipedia is not to act as a registry of people who did bad things). A violation of "it is not wikipedia's job to be sensationalist" - I can't see much other encyclopedic purpose to this article.
I don't think this article serves any genuinely encyclopedic purpose, and I think it goes against the principles of wikipedia, in particular WP:5P1. What kind of serious encyclopedia has articles about low profile 18 year olds who did neo-nazi stuff and alegedly got involved in crime? Creating articles like that is not at all the point of this project, or reflective of its principles. It also entirely goes against the spirit of WP:BLP, these are the kinds of situations this policy was created for. In conclusion, this article should be deleted per WP:CRIME, and it also also be deleted, per WP:DEL-REASON as a violation of BLP, in particular failing to meet WP:BLP1E, violating WP:BLPCRIME, and going against the entire spirit of BLP. An argument for WP:CONTENTFORK could also be made, because some amount of the content about this person could also be accomodated in other articles, such as Aidar Battalion, S14 (Ukrainian group), Elle (magazine), and probably more, with fewer WP:BLP issues. I also think it goes against WP:NOTNEWS, this is mainly news type content. --Tristario (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
vn.20minut.ua does not look like a reliable source. You can see here users can submit stories, and I cannot find an editorial policy. It shouldn't be used to establish notability, and probably shouldn't be used for claims about living people at all Tristario (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tristario: 20 minutes is an WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I confused the French outlet and the Ukrainian one. The notice at the bottom of 20minut.ua's website says reader-submitted stories are published in a separate "From the Readers" section; the stories I linked to don't appear to be published in this section, and have bylines that are linked to author pages, so I don't think they're reader-submitted (obviously if they were, it wouldn't be an RS). The notice at the bottom also names an "Editor". So I still think it's an RS, but not as clearly as the French outlet. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
WP:BLPCRIME applies whether the individual is low profile or high profile, it's just a much greater issue if the individual is low profile. WP:BLPCRIME also says for "individuals who are not public figures" - I think she's clearly not a public figure, especially as of right now. Perhaps she was during the trial (I still don't think so, being a public figure is quite a high standard), but not now. Right now she isn't meeting any reasonable criteria for being a public figure. It could be argued for many people who are suspected of crimes that they meet some criteria of being a public figure during and shortly after their arrest and trial - it's not reasonable logic to argue on that basis that WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't apply.
The criteria under "perpetrators" in WP:CRIME applies to perpetrators. She hasn't been convicted of anything as far as I'm aware. She doesn't pass the criteria there
While it is true during the trial she received some coverage of her not directly related to the trial, her notability and the interest in her in that coverage still came from her being a suspect in the trial, and some of it related to allegations of crime, which is still a WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME issue
In terms of whether she is low profile or high profile WP:LOWPROFILE notes that profile can change, and everything I see now indicates that she is low profile, since around 2017 maybe. I don't think appearing in Elle can be used to argue that she isn't low profile since they barely covered her in it, I believe she mainly just appeared in a photo. If it were not for the criminal trial she would be low profile, and I don't think it's reasonable to say that because she was high profile because of a trial where she wasn't convicted all the considerations of WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME shouldn't apply Tristario (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing given to support notability says she's now low profile: "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet. Now, judging by her videos, the girl is fighting in the Teroboron near Kyiv, where she was previously married and has been living for the past few years." OsFish (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
But this is not relevant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. On the contrary, the sentence you quote confirms she is notable: "scandalous woman ... made herself known" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your theory that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? Because that is precisely what you are arguing here.OsFish (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a meaningless question posed to a straw man. I've never theorised that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable. I won't reply to this but remind you of our WP:TALK guidelines including focus on content and stay on topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly focussing on content, and staying on topic. You said "On the contrary, the sentence you quote confirms she is notable: 'scandalous woman ... made herself known'." The sentence you partially quoted is, in full, with emphasis added, "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet." What I am NOT doing is hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say. I am trying to look at the evidence in the round and how it matches up with policy. I find that a good approach.OsFish (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, as you are well aware, I've argued that she's notable mainly because of the trial and the public compaign for her release, plus the Elle's affair, and I've never argued that she's notable because of her social media activities, which add something to her public profile and fame, and are therefore DUE for inclusion in the article, but in themselves are not sufficient to establish the subject's notability. Secondly, since you say that you are not hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say, could you please tell me where did you get your reference to YouTube? I bet thet you were referring to other discussions I've recently had on YouTube videos, am I wrong? And that would also explain the indefinite pronouns you used, everybody. Anyway, since I've never said that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Wikipedia, you should either answer my questions and convince me that you were not casting aspersions by deliberately misrepresenting my views, or simply apologise and move on. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Firstly, I am only too happy to explain the reference to YouTube. It's in the source that you quoted here when you stated that the source "confirms she is notable" because she "made herself known", the full quote being "made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet" (emphasis addded). As the source states, "Why did we mention her now? Because we came across a video from a YouTube channel named after her. And in this video we recognize her herself." I fully admit my original assertion about your argument was based on the assumption you had read the source you were quoting, and I'm happy to apologise for assuming due diligence on your part. Secondly, I really appreciate that you now disagree directly with the assertion by Levivich that her current activities constitute any kind of notability. As the source says, and I invite you to read it, she "has already been forgotten". This matters in terms of whether she is a low profile person and thus how we approach BLP1E. It's good we're making progress.OsFish (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine, so you've inferred that I have a theory that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Wikipedia from the fact that I quoted a source that - you are right there - mentions a YouTube video by Zaverukha. But then, since you don't like people hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say, let me quote the entire sentence relating to the YouTube video, so that maybe you'll understand where the view that she's notable comes from; and maybe you'll also by able to explain how you could credit me with that nonsense about the YouTube video as the source of her notability:

At the beginning of the war, in 2014, and then in 2015, Vinnytsia publications wrote endlessly about Vita Zaverukha. First as a "bander girl", then as a "revenge girl", then as a "terrorist girl". She fought, was arrested for a crime, sat in the Kyiv pre-trial detention center, was released thanks to a benefactor who paid more than one and a half million bail for her... Activists met her from the pre-trial detention center with flowers. Let's remind you, she got married. She settled in Kyiv, so now she is an ex-Vinnytsian. Why did we mention her now? Because they came across a video from a YouTube channel named after her.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finally reading the source. That's a great quote you've posted. It shows that she is notable for her connection to a single event and that she then became a low profile person. It also shows that this local news media source, which you and others have heavily used, is not a reliable source in the wikipedia sense of the word: It omits in plain sight the key information that she was acquitted, not merely released on bail. Even this source, which spends time denigrating her, doesn't see the Elle thing as even worth mentioning as part of who she is. Surely it would be better to have an article on the event itself - the killing of the two Berkut officers - where the arrest and treatment of the group Zaverukha was part of can of course be mentioned as DUE, including any campaigns focused on Zaverukha. That's what various policies point to given the state of sourcing. To be clear, I don't think she's (been) a nice person at all. But let's be here to build an encyclopedia and follow policy.OsFish (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. In this now deleted comment, you point out that the claim in the article that she had been acquitted was badly sourced. It’s a significant mistake because there is a BIG difference between being acquitted and being released without trial. Being acquitted means that prosecutors felt they had enough evidence to proceed with a formal trial. Being released implies not even that threshold was passed. That’s a serious BLP breach. So I really wouldn’t boast about it. Also, when you insist you knew perfectly well the full contents of the source all along, it means that when you made your false accusations at me regarding the relevance of YouTube videos, implying I had been wiki stalking you and telling me to focus on content, you knew my comments were instead based directly on the source we were discussing and that the accusations you made were false. This is poor form, but other people reading this should be aware that it's not the first time there has been a problem with your behaviour.OsFish (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTEMPORARY is about notability not being temporary. But it doesn't change that besides the criminal trial and associated events/coverage and since about 2017 she is low-profile and we should interpret various policies here through that lens Tristario (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you think she is low profile, the third requirement of BLP1E isn't met, which is why it doesn't apply. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable as per Levivich's and Mhorg's source analyses, to which nothing can be added. My own remark on notability are here [32]. From that remark, one point is maybe worth mentioning: when Zaverukha was in custody a public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles, which focused on Zaverukha alone ([33] There are five participants in the case of the shooting of the "Eagles", but social networks are raging only about Vinnytsia's Vitynenko), included a member of parliament handcuffing himself to Zaverukha during a hearing [34], clashes between police and demonstrators near the courtroom [35], protesters blocking the building of the Court of Appeal from the outside [36], and an internet campaign "Je suis Vita Zaveruha" [37]. It's simply obvious that she's notable. Apart from this, what I'd like to stress is that the article was in dare conditions but now is acceptable - perhaps not perfect, some work still needs to be done, but it's not too bad, I think. You can read it here [38]. Given the nature of the subject, which is highly controversial, the article is likely to be the target of disruption and surreptitious attempts at deletion in the near future, so I would be grateful if you could add it to your watchlist. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Levivich. Buffs (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand: There is clearly coverage of this person in many publications. Some people seem to be confusing WP:N with "we don't want to support their position. Notability can be fame or infamy; it does not indicate support for anyone's reprehensible actions. Buffs (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is strange to comment on an "article" that is currently a redirect to another article about a military unit that does not even mention Zaverukha, but it is what it is. She is a figure of perhaps borderline notability but I think that the sustained coverage over the years comes down on the side of the notability of this person. I agree with most of Levivich's analysis, although some but not all of the sources parrot each other almost word for word and therefore should not be considered separate sources. I also agree with most of Gitz's analysis. Those who want to delete seem to be arguing that we should do so because Russian propagandists focus on her. I deeply disagree with that analysis. To be clear, off-Wikipedia, I support Ukraine without hesitation against unjust Russian aggression. But that does not mean that Wikipedia should portray all Ukrainian militants as saints and all Putin supporters as devils. We have WP:NPOV for a very good reason. I am a patriotic American but I know that my country committed what would now be called war crimes starting with the American Revolution and that horrible wartime misbehavior was a major feature of my country's involvement in every war from at least the Mexican-American War to the 21st century wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want all of that covered in this encyclopedia, not covered up. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that she isn't notable because Russian propagandists focus on her, it's that she's notable because Russian propagandists is the only place where the coverage of her originates. Please tell me - what exactly has she done that is "notable"? Volunteer Marek 06:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as weakly sourcedWP:BLP1E violation and likely WP:CRIMINAL violation of BLP policies. I'll mention policy in the main and then make a comment about problems to do with propaganda because it IS in the encyclopedia's interest to know if someone is trying to manufacture notability. But before anything else, contra to some !votes already cast, can we please be clear that merely appearing in the media or another RS is NOT the same as notability. The fact that we can confirm she is exists is not enough. Notability has a much higher threshold, particularly with BLP. See WP:BUTITEXISTS.
The fundamental problem is what she's supposed to be notable for. Look at the lead:

Vita Zaverukha...is an Ukrainian nationalist militant and ex-serviceman of the volunteer battalion Aidar. Following Elle France's publication in 2014 of an article on pro-government female fighters in the war in Donbas, she became known for publishing neo-Nazi content on social media.[1][2] In 2015, she was arrested on charges of participating in a robbery in Kyiv that resulted in the death of two policemen of the Berkut special force.[3][4] A public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles.[5] She was released on bail in 2017[6] and later acquitted.[7] She resumed her participation in the actions of the Ukrainian radical right[1] and, following the 2022 Russian invasion, she reportedly joined the territorial defense near Kyiv.[7]

The Elle reference is to a mention in an Elle article as one woman among many. A fuss arose was because Zaverukha was a Neo-Nazi and they shouldn't have included her. That doesn't make Zaverukha a notable person. That's material for the Elle (magazine) page and the reaction they got for it. Likewise, the Georgetown University book on women at war mentions her in passing. To quote WP:NBIO, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Those articles are not primarily about her. It's poor pickings when we are supposed to be careful with BLP. Essentially, she is supposed to be notable because a journalist who didn't write much about her didn't know she was a neo Nazi that one time. But being a neo-Nazi in itself isn't a notable achievement.
Then, consider the final sentence: "She resumed her participation in the actions of the Ukrainian radical right[1] and, following the 2022 Russian invasion, she reportedly joined the territorial defense near Kyiv.[7]" Neither of these is grounds for notability, especially not the last bit when there's an all-out war going on.
So what we are left with is this:

In 2015, she was arrested on charges of participating in a robbery in Kyiv that resulted in the death of two policemen of the Berkut special force.[3][4] A public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles.[5] She was released on bail in 2017[6] and later acquitted.[7]

In other words, for her connections as one among many to a single event which is a crime. What does WP:BLP1E say?

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.

And then there is WP:CRIMINAL, the guideline regarding notability of people involved in criminal acts. Such a guideline is of course needed because anyone arrested for a serious crime gets into the press. It says:

For perpetrators,

  1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[1] or
  2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[2]
    • Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
Both those policies strongly suggest that Zaverukha should NOT be the subject of her own article, especially considering that she was NOT the only one arrested in this one event (three other members of the far right were also) and she was NOT found guilty. Much of the detailed coverage is actually local, including frequent sourcing to a local website that appears to solicit user content, vn.20minut.ua.
Regarding Russian propaganda: as others have already stated, we do need to be aware of the movement to make her into a much bigger figure in Ukraine than she actually is. There has been problematic behaviour on the page itself, with likely sock puppet activity and disruptive editing including from IPs. So I advise people look closely at what is actually there in sources, because it is a lot less than the cut and paste lists of RS supposedly establishing notability would lead you to believe.OsFish (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Having reviewed most of the stronger-looking sources listed, this seems very much to be a WP:PSEUDO-biography, because her notability rests entirely on two incidents: the 2014 Elle scandal and the 2015 criminal case and subsequent trial. If she was substantially involved in just one of the events this would be a clear case under WP:BLP1E; the ambiguity arises because two events are involved, giving a stronger initial impression of general notability. However, looking at each case, the answer is a clear no to each of the following BLP questions: Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? Is the person notable for any other events in their life? Because of this lack of notability beyond the incident, there are no biographical elements in the article: no reliable source has reported on her life before her brief notoriety relating to Elle, and the incidents after the 2017 trial are fragmented non-noteworthy incidents about which there are fairly vague allegations. It does not appear that she is a significant leader in the far right, just a footsoldier who had 15 minutes of fame. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello BobFromBrockley, actually there is at least one source reporting on her life before her brief notoriety relating to Elle: see this 2014 dedicated article (with interview and photos) on the local press of Vinnytsia [39]. During and after the trial we have various articles from Ukrainian national press entirely dedicated to her in connection with the trial and the public campaign for her liberation: I wouldn't say that she was mentioned only in connection with an event or organization there, since she was the main/exclusive focus of the event, be it the trial or the public campaign: [40][41][42][43][44] (very incomplete random selection). Following the trial and her liberation, her vicessitudes continued to be reported by the national press: attack on LGBT activists [45], attack on her and her partner [46][47], and occasionally also by international sources (attack on Women's Rights March, US Department [48]). Finally we also have a detailed article on her whole life by the local press [49] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gitz. I missed the vn.20minut piece. It's hard for me to assess the reliability of the local sources (or assess how event-focused rather than person-focused they are), but if it is clear that a complete biographical picture can be assembled from reliable sources then my concerns would be lightened. (I am not convinced that the more recent incidents are evidence of notability as too trivial, but worth mentioning if we conclude there is notability, although we need to attend to WP:BLPCRIME concerns.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak to all the sources posted here but none of the ones I posted are local coverage; they're all national or international. 20 Minutes is French for example. It's in the Ukrainian language but it's a French outlet. Levivich (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to its website, "The 20minut.ua website is part of the RIA Media publishing group, which is also part of the RIA © 20minut.ua Media Corporation", which appears to be a wholly Ukrainian endeavour. It has some EU connections and may well be RS, but it doesn't seem to be French. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that it has a big button encouraging reader submissions for stories, and the source is a local instance of it: vn.20minut.ua. On the talk page prior to this AFD, concerns about vn.20minut.ua were flatly ignored, unfortunately.OsFish (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob's right, I did confuse the Ukrainian 20minute.ua with the French 20 Minutes publication; they are not the same. (The reader-submitted stories are published in a special "from the reader" section, neither of the two I linked to appear to be in that section and both have bylines with a link to an author page; there is also a named editor.) Levivich (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note: she was 18 years old when she was interviewed by Elle so there isn't a lot of reason to expect coverage of her life before that, when she was a minor. She's been the subject of media coverage each year after that. She's lived literally her entire adult life being covered by national and international media. Also, in response to other votes (not Bob's), I want to point out she wasn't one of many women covered by Elle, she was one of like five, and she was the "cover girl" as it were, meaning the main focus of the coverage. Levivich (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting, though perhaps not very relevant to this discussion, that Ukrainian sources almost always ignore the incident with Elle. For them, she is not significant for that minor and frankly uninteresting event, which is only significant for Western audiences, if at all. For the Ukrainian press, she's significant because, firstly, she was the youngest female fighter in the Aidar bataillion; second, because she had a very visible and controversial social media profile; third, because she was the protagonist of an important trial, which addressed a sensitive issue in post-Maidan Ukraine - the relation between far-right groups and the state [50]; finally, she is significant because of the campaign for her release, which explains why very minor events, such as the beating by the C14 group group, in 2017 got national (not local) coverage in Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per sourcing above and the redirect is inappropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BLP1E is often mis-cited by editors arguing that if a person is only notable for one event then they are not notable. That's arguing the shortcut instead of arguing the policy. BLP1E's 3rd requirement is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Considering the trial for murder of two police officers during a bank robbery is called by the press the "Zaverukha case" and received national media coverage for three years, it cannot be said that the event was not significant or her role was not substantial or well documented. BLP1E does not apply here and I hope the closer takes note. Levivich (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But if it's the case that the event (the case) is what is notable, then the article should be about the case and not the person, no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because the criminal case is just one aspect of her notability. She was notable before being arrested in 2015 and still notable after being acquitted in 2017, as evidenced by sources ranging from 2014 to 2022, including one academic source that says in its own voice that she "stands out" among other women fighters in Ukraine and is "notorious" in Russia. That's not a one event situation, it's multiple events over a period of years. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a major point of dispute whether her notability goes beyond her association with a criminal event. You should be careful not to confuse WP:DUE (what can be included in an article on a notable topic) and WP:NOTABILITY (whether the article should exist.) For example, you refer to events in 2022 - that she joined in the defence against the invasion by the Russian Federation. That is not a notable activity otherwise we'd have over a million articles on each Ukrainian citizen actively defending their country. The Elle palaver boils down to a journalist who wrote a bit about her in an article not dedicated primarily to her not knowing she was a neo-Nazi. That's not grounds for notability.OsFish (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "notable" means, in this context, that an article subject meets the WP:Notability guideline. So something is or is not notable if it meets WP:N, of which WP:GNG is a part. This subject is notable because she is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (the ones I linked to in my !vote above). It doesn't matter what the coverage is about: being a soldier, being a criminal, being a neonazi, being a YouTuber, having the hiccups for a long time, literally doesn't matter at all. Notability is determined by the sourcing, not by what the subject did. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid your claim that the notability rules do not address notability in various contexts - including notability via involvement in crime - is simply false. How else would various editors here - including YOURSELF where you quote WP:BLPCRIME - quote such rules if they didn't exist? You have been editing wikipedia far too long to mess around like this.OsFish (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not claimed that notability rules do not address notability in various contexts? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps consider deleting this: "It doesn't matter what the coverage is about: being a soldier, being a criminal, being a neonazi, being a YouTuber, having the hiccups for a long time, literally doesn't matter at all." As you now concede, that's false. Certain activities result in RS mentions more than other activities. The notability rules governing different kinds of people have been written to address that. OsFish (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not concede that's false. "It doesn't matter what the coverage is about" does not mean the same thing as "notability rules do not address notability in various contexts". If we want to consider WP:SNGs, she is notable under WP:NPERSON because she meets WP:BASIC (which is the same as GNG). Levivich (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very glad you referred to WP:BASIC. Let me quote from it: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not." (Emphasis added). This whole thread is about BLP1E. Your assertion elsewhere that she's also notable for being a soldier right now (in a country suffering from an invasion by a major military power and so has quite a few other mobilised people) results from a confusion of the different principles WP:DUE (justified inclusion in an article on a notable topic) and WP:NOTABILITY (whether a topic is notable and should have their own article). OsFish (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP1E does not apply because the 2nd and 3rd requirements aren't met: she is a high profile individual, and even if she wasn't, she still had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Levivich (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The event is the killing of two Berkut officers. She was acquitted of involvement in that event, and was not the only person arrested and charged. The thing is, that event is something you have compared on this very page to a "crime of the century". Someone who didn't do the crime of the century, but whose presence in substantive RS coverage comes from their connection to that crime, is obviously subordinate in notability to that crime itself. And since then, there hasn't been anything she has done that could possibly be described as notable as understood in Wikipedia policy (again, reminding you of the difference between DUE and NOTABLE).OsFish (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the thing, your own source that you cited for her continued notability says explicitly that she has been "forgotten" since that case. "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet. Now, judging by her videos, the girl is fighting in the Teroboron near Kyiv, where she was previously married and has been living for the past few years." Your own source, endorsed by you, says she is now low-profile. OsFish (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm neutral on whether this article should be kept or not, but it should certainly not have been redirected to an article that doesn't even mention her. Instead of vitriolic discussion on the talkpage and edit warring it should have been brought to AfD straightaway. Why is an article under discussion at AfD currently a redirect so nobody can easily see what they're commenting on? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it was an edit war that landed at ANI followed by an AfD request. With the BLP concerns raised by established editors it seemed prudent to not have the article on public view while this was being sorted out. Merited IAR is my belief. As you're the second edit to ask this, moving my note to the nom so folks aren't confused. Star Mississippi 15:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BLPCRIME similarly doesn't apply here because the subject is not a low-profile individual. WP:LPI sats A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. The subject actively sought media attention before she was arrested: the Elle interview was 2014, the arrest was 2015. She also actively sought out media attention during her trial, and after, as documented by the articles about her. As a separate issue, because the victims of the crime were police officers, and I'd argue any murder of a police officer is a murder of a public figure. BLPCRIME doesn't apply here because neither the accused nor the victims were low profile, and nobody arguing the policy seems to be addressing that part of it. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to who was murdered, the correct policy here is WP:CRIME, not WP:BLPCRIME. It states that "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal ...should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure..., or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." (emphasis added). She was acquitted. I don't enjoy defending her on this issue because she's a neo-nazi, but at the same time, being a neo-nazi who didn't commit a murder isn't notable separate from the event she was arrested for.OsFish (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRIME: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. The 2022 article is an example of coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. The "Zaverukha case" is, indeed, a well-documented historical event in Ukraine, and the alleged motivation for the crime (domestic terrorism), and the execution of the crime (death of two police officers) were unusual and considered noteworthy (by the plethora of national media that covered it), as was the trial itself, which included her slashing her wrists in court, an elected lawmaker handcuffing himself to her, and her being beaten in custody allegedly by the authorities, as well as the ultimate acquittal. A bank robbery by alleged terrorists in which two police officers were killed is a huge crime in almost any country, and in some countries would be called the "Crime of the Century". That stuff doesn't happen every day, not to mention everything that happened during the trial. But even putting all of that aside, she's not only notable for the trial, because the GNG coverage of her preceded the trial and continued afterwards. She was notable for being a soldier before, and after, she was notable for being a defendant in a major criminal case. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was something like the crime of the century, would Levivich support a RENAME of the article to turn it into addressing the history crime itself? That would be the most policy-based approach, it would dissolve the BLP issues and we could all get on being here to build an encyclopedia.OsFish (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, first let me say: everyone in this discussion is here to build an encyclopedia, and this discussion is building an encyclopedia. AFD is part of building an encyclopedia. I'm going to WP:AGF you're not suggesting otherwise. Second, no, I wouldn't support changing this into an article about the crime, because of what I said in the last sentence of my comment that you are replying to. Although the crime is probably notable enough for a stand-alone article, and having her biography merged into a part of that article could potentially be done in a WP:DUE manner in line with WP:PAGEDECIDE. However, I'd need to see the sourcing for the article about the crime, and the text of the proposed merger, to make up my mind about whether it would be DUE or not. But even though I'm a "keep", I would consider a later merger proposal if someone went and wrote the target article. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The aspect of WP:BLPCRIME that does apply here relates to the post-2017 coverage that focuses on minor crimes where there are vague allegations but no convictions, e.g. the attack on LGBT activists and a woman's march. They might seem noteworthy in an existing article, but BLPCRIME cautions us that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If something can't be included for this reason, it seems like we couldn't hang notability on it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the article is not alledging "minor crimes". It is reporting that 1) she was involved in an attack on transgender activists. Whether that attack qualifies as a crime or not, we don't know. The source [51] says that she was identified by the victims, but doesn't say if they pressed charges or if the attack was punishable under the Criminal Code as assault. "involved in an attack" seems a fair summary. 2) The article says that a human rights report by the US State Department stated that Vita Zaverukha and other activists of the Unknown Patriot group were among the suspects in an attack on participants of the 8 March. Once again, we are not claiming that she committed a crime, or that the US State Department claimed she committed a crime. The very fact that the US State Department writes that she is among the suspects in a political action is in itself noteworthy and deserves inclusion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources listed by Levivich (and Mhorg) seem more than sufficient. It does not appear that these sources are just routine police-blotter reporting; this was an incident with a significant amount of national attention, and so there was sustained and in-depth coverage on the incident and on Zaverukha's role in it; point #3 in BLP1E would not be met here ("the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented"). I mean, more subjectively, I think that's evidenced by the fact that (and I'm trusting the translations from Levivich here) the case was given names like the 'Zaveruha case' in RFE/RL. Whether the article should be principally focussed on Zaverukha or the criminal case is a reasonable matter for editorial discretion, but given there’s other noteworthy biographical information about Zaverukha here, I do think it makes the most sense kept as a biography. Endwise (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, she is briefly mentioned in a number of news sources, but what she is notable for? She is not notable as a soldier. Yes, she is a former servicewomen of Aidar. That does not make her notable. She is not notable as a criminal (if she is a criminal; she did not kill anyone). She is not notable as a neo-Nazi (if she is a neo-Nazi or a person with "far-right" views, there are many of them). She is not a blogger or an internet personality. Yes, she posted something, but who did not? This all apparently started from Elle France mentioning her as an example of something, apparently an erroneous example, as follows from their apology/retraction. My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source checking shows that she was covered mostly as a suspect of a crime, but she has been acquitted of all charges. I think she is just an ordinary (not a notable) person unfairly accused of the crime, which indeed does not warrant a separate page about her per WP:BLP concerns, as has been arguded by others. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's not an awfully highest bar for a biography to be notable. The fact that the against-notability arguments, above, are so numerous and intricate is itself a sign against their soundness. I have read a few of these arguments and I don't find them convincing. I don't think this article is a bunch of cookie-cutter indiscriminate info, and I think (per WP:10YT) it's reasonable that some readers would find the info in this article interesting. I'm also not convinced by the argument that many other people did similar acts: a) the same can be said for soooo many of the BLPs we have here which consensus has determined are more than acceptable for inclusion; b) sometimes the biography of certain individuals can be more representative and useful than talking in generalities; c) sometimes many 'common' things can, in combination, be uncommon (note arguments above address multiple routes to notability, largely disqualifying WP:BLP1E). In any case, it's clear the low bar of GNG is met, and I don't think there's been any compelling enough argument to override GNG here. WP:CRIMINAL (A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.) doesn't apply least because there is no such existing article AFAIK and indeed some proponents above have argued this info shouldn't be added to an existing article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: WP:CRIMINAL then lays down when there should be an article. "only if one of the following applies...For perpetrators,
# The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[3] or
# The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[4]
#* Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. (emphasis in original)
  • I've just discovered that even the claim in the article that Zaverukha was acquitted (ie prosecutors felt there was enough evidence against her to move to a formal trial) is false: the source used says she was released from the investigation, ie without trial. WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E exist precisely because we need to avoid such BLP problems. An article on the event itself avoids these issues.OsFish (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in WP:NBIO is overriding of GNG, and WP:CRIMINAL (as with all other sections of NBIO) are guidance which is most useful when applied to people whose notability clearly stems from one thing. Vita's (as argued by those supporting deletion above) does not derive from any singular thing, so no SNG is appropriate/relevant here, at least not as an exclusionary factor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Example: John Hinckley Jr.
  2. ^ Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
  3. ^ Example: John Hinckley Jr.
  4. ^ Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vita_Zaverukha&oldid=1128640882"