Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Russia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Russia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Russia.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Russia related AfDs

  • Scan for Russia related Prods
  • Scan for Russia related TfDs


Russia

VDud

VDud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. This is an unusual situation; the subject is a YouTube channel. The creator (Yury Dud) is wp:notable primarily via unrelated areas. The references here barely even mention VDud much less GNG coverage and there really isn't coverage derived from them. This is basically nothing but a self-written catalog of the YouTube channel. The article on the creator seems to have encyclopedic coverage of vDud, but is also confusing, seeming to be covering unrelated things as being vD. IMO the tiny bit of enclyclopedic content here should be merged into Yury Dud. Someday if someone could get GNG references and derive content from them that might viable. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ecrusized (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the killing of at least 16 civillians and the targeting of civillian infrastructure is absolutely news Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn’t. Russia has been deliberately attacking civilian targets for a significant amount of time now. This strike is no different than the thousands of other attacks. CutlassCiera 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"is absolutely news" @Monochromemelo1: Please read policies before commenting on your interpretation of their shortcuts. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which states that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Quote, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information Ecrusized (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's war. There are airstrikes. What else is there to say? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
almost every israeli air strike is documented during the Israel–Hamas war why cant the same be done for air strikes by russia? Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Ecrusized (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's NOT a war according to Russia. They call it a "special operation". Ukraine calls it act of terror during war. Both deserve an article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or delete collectively. A missile strike against a residential building murdering 17 civilians and injuring over 60 others should sound like a highly notable event worth an article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, because the fascist Russian state has been targeting civilians indiscriminately in a disgusting effort to break their will to resist, these have indeed become routine. But this article is no less notable than many that have already had an article for some time, such as 2024 Donetsk attack, 2024 Pokrovsk missile strike or August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike, just to name a few. We should either keep them all or delete them all. We need a centralized discussion to decide what do we do with these articles and establish a threshold of notability. By deleting one article every few months while three other similar articles have been written we do not go anywhere. Super Ψ Dro 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a number of articles about similar russian airstrikes against civilians in Ukraine, with more or less casualties: April 2023 Sloviansk airstrike, 2023 Uman missile strike, Kharkiv dormitories missile strike and many more. --Lystopad (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we can decide whether this fails WP:NEVENT after the war is over. But for now, I see no reason why it should be deleted; every Russian warcrime is notable enough for an article. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although there's missile strikes being launched into Ukraine consistently, this one missile strike produced a significant casualty count compared to the others. Due to that, I see it as a notable event that is significant enough to have it's own article. Nintenga (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep similarly as the August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike--Noel baran (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start larger discussion The only thing that makes this stand out from the dozens of other articles about similar airstrikes is that this comes at a time when Ukraine is running criticially low on air defense missiles, and it probably has a higher than average number of casualties. As Super Dro said, it would be good to start a more centralized discussion about these articles rather than just make a decision for one of them every few months. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Nintenga and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We also have articles for other terror attacks across Europe, such as Hanau shootings or 2016 Berlin truck attack, where less people were killed. User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article."
    @3E1I5S8B9RF7: Perhaps open your eyes before so presumptuous? "WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Ecrusized (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina

AfDs for this article:
Ekaterina Zaikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and EVENTCRIT. Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects. No recent news on the topic so fails both CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The crash catches my attention because it it doesn't sound like a "normal" accident. To me it sounds the plane was shot out of the sky or blown up either accidentally or on purpose. Anyway, both ways, that would make it plausible that Russia tries to cover it up. Due to the contoversies and because I think it would be a shame if this information would be lost, I vote Weak keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the plane were shot down, then the accident doesn't exactly warrant an article as it has already been mentioned in: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of Russian military accidents.
    Even then, the fact that there hasn't been any news related to this accident since 2022 already fails, as I've said, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED.
    The event fails WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as most sources were covered by russian media outlets and didn't receive significant or in-depth coverage to be considered notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the argument on losing the information is pretty weak per WP:LOSE as this article already fails multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, instead of deleting: merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian aircraft losses might be the best option. I would propose stating there (including removing the current "cashed" typo):

    Registration number RF-36074 crashed in Uryv-Pokrovka, Voronezh Oblast. The aircraft exploded in the air and fell between three villages. Fragments of the wreck scattered of over a large area.[1] According to the Ministry of Defense, the preliminary cause was equipment failure.[2] According to eyewitnesses the cause was possibly a shell hit.[3] All of the undisclosed number of occupants were killed, consisting of crew members and paratroopers.[3] Usually this type of aircraft has six crew members.[1]

    82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like, judging from other entries in the article, that we should follow the same style therefore I would suggest keeping the entry as it is:

    Registration number RF-36074 cashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Allegedly caused by a technical malfunction. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a non-established style should never be regarded as more important than the quality of the prose or an inhibition of content. Note the current Russian state owned Tass source has an interest and might be unreliable. The sources I use are more journalistic and not one-sided. (And what I said, don’t keep the typo :) ) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried to improve the article with these edits. I expanded the article (among others witnesses reports, noted there were paratroopers onboard and the number of crew members) and added an extra source. However, this was reverted by Lachielmao (talk · contribs). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify I had no issue with the new content and sources added, but there was speculation used without a source as well as rewriting sections with worse grammar and writing prose. Lachielmao (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lachielmao: I don't understand why you say I added speculations without a source. See here the version after I expanded it. Everything was well referenced. (Bye the way, it sounds ambiguous when you're saying "I had no issue with the new content and sources added" because you removed it.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be preferable if you discussed this on the talk page instead of this page as this is a discussion on whether to keep or delete the article, not to talk about whether or not these edits should be included. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per nom, this fails WP:SUSTAINED, and this crash doesn't seem to be any more notable than the many Russian aircraft crashes listed in the List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War that don't have their own article, so we should just merge the basic information about the crash there. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign interventions by Russia

Foreign interventions by Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Putting this up for deletion because the scope of the list does not seem consistent with the style or content of lists of this type in other parts of the wiki. Feels like it should be merged into something else -- like the articles about the Russian Federation. Sadads (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Burtasova

Anna Burtasova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Sources of dubious quality"? They are all from FIDE, the ultimate reliable source for chess. PamD 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not dubious in the sense that they are unreliable, but they just do not establish notability. They are largely collections of statistics, and not articles about the person. None of the FIDE sources show significant coverage, which, as stated for the notability of sportspeople: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." This does not meet that, and I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this person. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG. The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar (tank)

Tsar (tank) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, and appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article simply needs more sources. Salfanto (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say this because the story of the tank is relatively recent Salfanto (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Three questions, mostly directed to Salfanto but any editor may take them up:
  1. Do the sources this article simply needs exist? If yes, then please present them here.
  2. If the answer to the above question is no, then should we reasonably expect supporting reliable, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage to emerge in the near future? If yes, then this article was created WP:TOOSOON, but userification/draftification might be a viable alternative to deletion until such sources emerge.
  3. If the answer to the above question is no, then is a redirect to T-72 operators and variants#Soviet Union and Russia a viable alternative to deletion?
Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking these questions.
So far I have found 3 sources which call the tank Tsar.
https://en.defence-ua.com/news/characteristics_of_trophy_russian_tsar_ew_for_t_72b3m_tank_given_by_ukrainian_expert-10115.html
https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-anti-drone-tank
https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-situation-report-russian-anti-drone-electronic-warfare-tank-captured
Again, tank you for asking me those questions (pun intended) Salfanto (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This seems to be a single tank with a bunch of field modifications which got taken a week ago. It's way too soon to think that there is going to be lasting interest in one tank, especially given that the modifications appear not to have worked. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There are just enough sources to justify the article. Cortador (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyosha (tank)

Alyosha (tank) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability; lack of WP:RS to establish notability Amigao (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep there is video footage of the tank's actions Salfanto (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to T-80 models. The article is very poorly sourced, and "video footage" is not going to add reliability or credibility (it's easy to fabricate). In the doctrine of Russian military deception there is explicitly a measure named "Disinformation" (дезинформация). Under this measure, Russia actively seeks military advantage by tactics such as "untrue information to journalists". This accompanies concealment, imitation, simulation, and demonstrative manoeuvres (false trails). In other words, denial and deception come as standard in war or peace, and this is war. Do we believe that Putin congratulated some soldiers as heroes, etc? Yes. Do we believe that this was the work of one super-tankish-tank and its heroic crew? Not especially. Is this an encyclopedic article? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this article is to tell the history of the tank similarly to other articles about named tanks such as Eagle 7 or Bomb Salfanto (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I believe that wikipedia is best when not biased to one side Salfanto (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilisa Kaganovskaia

Vasilisa Kaganovskaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; any medal placements are at the junior level. PROD was removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSKATE, as far as I can tell. Halfadaniel (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The "Grand Prix" is not a senior-level national championship. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Steinberg

AfDs for this article:
Sofia Steinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was trying to fix an orphan article, but I came to the conclusion that she just doesn't pass our criteria for notability. There are some sources, including Brightside.com (fails WP:RS) and The Fashion Model Directory (user input, like IMDB, so fails WP:RS for V/N) and she won an award from Models.com (not notable company, not notable award, was "people's choice", a popularity vote, not a vote of industry people). Looked around the web and I see lots of social media. Even in the unreliable sources, she barely gets a mention, and utterly no significant coverage. Yes, she is a model, yes, she has had some good gigs (but can't verify them) but no independent or reliable sig/cov at all. At the end of the day, she fails to clear the low bar of WP:GNG, the gold standard for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last AfD covered this and was just a month ago? Right? FortunateSons (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that until after I created this AFD, and I spot checked a couple of the sources only that were given, and unimpressed by the sig/cov and WP:RS, so I decided to let it play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Did you check the Russian articles as well? FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep. Has just been kept after a comprehensive debate. If we would delete it now, this would be a classroom example of FORUMSHOPPING. gidonb (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. I can't find anything more than database like IMDb, Getty images, Shutterstock photos, Famous Birthday, and more. Problem of context ad SIGCOV. Looking the the article again, there may be chance of being notable in the future but in the status quo, No!!!. Trying WP:THREE, I can't find any too! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To mitigate my forumshop concern, I'm inviting EVERYONE to this debate who has expressed an opinion in the previous AfD that was just closed as keep. Please, all, express your opinion once more! Ping: CurryTime7-24, Oaktree b, Tehonk, Ostalgia, FortunateSons, Marokwitz, Jeraxmoira, I'm tla. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Still a delete, I didn't see coverage a month ago, nothing's changed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I voted delete in first nom, still think the same, the sources do not really satisfy SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: Per WP:6MONTHS. Personally, I am leaning towards delete unless someone does a source analysis of the articles mentioned in the previous AfD to show WP:THREE or other relevant SNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my procedural keep vote. Though other editors may not feel the same and there should never be an excuse because we have the WP:6MONTHS rule for a reason, I believe this nom was done in good faith without the knowledge of the previous AfD, so my vote should be taken as Draftify until a clear source analysis is presented. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really did miss the fact that an AFD had just taken place, so it wasn't trying to pound the article, but once it was done, I felt I should let it snow, or let more people look at it. Really, I just don't see how this passes GNG with anything remotely related to significant coverage. Maybe it is too soon, maybe it will get there eventually, but it isn't there now and there is no reason to think there is enough sigcov out there. Plenty of mentions? Sure, but that isn't the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RA-78804

RA-78804 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The incident is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Per WP:AIRCRASH, in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable. The accident didn't result in a significant change in the operation of the aircraft or the operation of the Russian Air Force. Thus, the incident failed WP:GNG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and Russia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added several references from the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at ru:Катастрофа Ил-76 под Абаканом. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. The article in question doesn't meet the criteria for notability per nomination. However, there is already an existing article titled List of Russian military accidents that include incidents such as this one. Integrating this article into the existing list would be better solution. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents where that states: "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." Next to that the nominator wrongly states that the essay states "in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable". The essay itself states "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent."
Most of the military accidents that happens regulary are carrying 1 or a few crew members. This accident killed 24 people, including 13 passengers. So (as example) in my opition it's about the same notability as the previous month 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash: a militairy airplane that crashed (15 peoeple were killed including passengers were killed).
An investigaion has been done into the cause of the crash and advice was given to prevent a similar accident.
There were multiple aspects on several levels (from the pilots, to the air traffic control, to aircraft weight inspector/approver to airplane map designer) that contributed to this crash including:
The 337 metres high hill was not indicated on the map of the pilots
The aircraft was overloaded
Air traffic control was not checking the location of the aircraft after take-off
A SOS signal went off but was ignored
That makes that the accidents meets all the aspects of WP:Event
But the article should be renamed: The current title of "RA-78804" is the registration number of the aircraft. According to the standards, the article should be moved to: 1996 Abakan Ilyushin IL-76 crash. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of available reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Russian military accidents in the absence of any sources citing WP:LASTING effects such as changes to procedures. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There are Russian sources for it. But perahps rename the article to 1996 Abakan Ilyushin IL-76 crash --Artene50 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename – Per @Artene50. Significant coverage of Russian-language sources. Svartner (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

Draft

See also

  1. ^ a b "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
  2. ^ "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
  3. ^ a b "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Russia&oldid=1219481118"