Wiki How:Articles for deletion/Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia

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. Consensus keep. However, since most of sources in Russian seem to use his name, not the title, I am renaming the article to George Mikhailovich Romanov. Tone 17:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The supposed heir to a pretender is not notable, also not adequately sourced. PatGallacher (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. His own article might be justified by coverage when he succeeds as pretender, but not yet. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge I’m not sure for this one, however agree per User:Jonathan A Jones. VocalIndia (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion to Keep per agree all below. VocalIndia (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major royal descendant; arguably the primary Romanov claimant. Also nominator User talk:PatGallacher shows bias Plutonium27 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way? PatGallacher (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PatGallacher Are you an anti-monarchist per your talkpage? So You nominated many AfD on monarchy articles for WP:IDONTLIKE?. VocalIndia (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also some basic research off Wikipedia before deciding non reigning = not notable on all these AFD’s of Mr Gallacher’s wouldn’t be an unreasonable thing to ask. - dwc lr (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:IDONTLIKE? For example: a comparison of your 'articles created' efforts with your AfD noms, shows ample evidence of a somewhat singular view of notability. (FWIW I am not a monarchist).Plutonium27 (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a Google News search for Георгий Михайлович Романов shows plenty of coverage. - dwc lr (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV, Plutonium27 and dwc lr, as well as the bias of the nominator WP:IDONTLIKE. --Richiepip (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is enough material to warrant an article in the mainspace per WP:SIGCOV. Also, these endless nominations of biographies only on the basis that they have a former royal title in front of their names (WP:IDONTLIKE) is getting tiring now. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has been a regular subject for media coverage since his grandfather died in 1992 - that would be something like the last 28 years! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe there's something I'm missing (maybe there are additional sources in Russian I haven't found?), but I'm not seeing the WP:Significant coverage other editors are apparently seeing. I see a bunch of genealogical sources that don't establish notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:INVALIDBIO, and also in general WP:NOTGENEALOGY), Wikipedia:Non-independent sources, and a bunch of trivial mentions and celebrity gossip (a car accident he was involved in, how he spent Palm Sunday, and so on), but no in-depth coverage that I have been able to find (basic biographical info is not in-depth). Even searching for "Георгий Михайлович Романов" as suggested above doesn't turn up much. There might be enough about his career to warrant a stand-alone article, but I'm not convinced based on what I have found so far (there's what I gather to be a food bank that he is involved with, but what coverage I have found there is not about him but rather about the food bank itself). There is no content currently on the article that I think is worth merging (the genealogy and claim to the Romanov throne is already at Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia), and of the possible redirect targets (Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, House of Romanov#Pretenders, Pretender#Russian pretenders, maybe others) there is no particular one I would advocate. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like others have said, this person has been covered in Russian media and thus easily pass WP:GNG. While searching for Russian sources might be tedious, they are not hard to find: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. All these AFDs are tiresome. Royal status does not by itself confer notability, only coverage by reliable sources does. Whether or not his royal status is recognized by any government is irrelevant. How many times does this have to be said? StellarHalo (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered those sources, but I don't think any of them reach the level of significant coverage of the subject of this article. The first contains basic biographical and genealogical information and very briefly mentions his various places of employment over the years. The second constitutes significant coverage of Фонд продовольствия Русь, but not really of Георгий Михайлович Романов (this is what I was referring to when I said that what coverage I have found there is not about him but rather about the food bank itself). The third is run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip. The fourth is not WP:RELIABLE (see WP:RSP#RIA Novosti). The fifth is run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip. The sixth contains basic biographical and genealogical information, run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip, and a very brief mention (namedrop, really) of what in English seems to be called the "Russian Imperial Foundation for Cancer Research".

    I try to apply the same standard here as I would to someone who is otherwise a complete nobody. If, for instance, I found out that my hairdresser has been covered in as much depth as the subject of this article has (i.e. basic biographical and genealogical information and mentions of previous places of employment), I would not consider that to constitute significant coverage indicative of notability. As I said before, there might be enough about his career to warrant a stand-alone article, but I'm not convinced. TompaDompa (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • According to you, sources you don't like = run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip regardless of truthfulness. Where is the Wikipedia's policy or guideline that specifically says that this type of source cannot be used as citations or to establish notability which does not even require that he be the main subject of articles? These articles are not trivial mentions of his name but focus on him specifically. Also, a huge amount of articles typically of socialites and models (ex. this and this) currently rely on this type of sources extensively for the content of their pages. If you do not like them, why don't you try deprecating them, then? StellarHalo (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe this is on me for not phrasing it more clearly, but you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip" – it's not a comment on the WP:RELIABILITY of the sources themselves, but rather a comment on the depth of coverage found within. That somebody wants to move to a different country, is an eligible bachelor, or enjoys playing sports is not in-depth, WP:Significant coverage. If an article in the local newspaper provided the same depth of information about the local baker, I wouldn't consider it indicative of the baker being a notable person suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. I'm not saying that the sources are unusable (I am not familiar with them, so I don't know if they are reputable or more along the lines of WP:DAILYMAIL), I'm saying that the coverage in these articles does not confer notability. TompaDompa (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TompaDompa Why so serious? I think you are an anti-monarchist and over the moon😂. I knew you at this AfD. You are very over and botched with long comments and opinion🙄. I read your comments and i think there are contain unnecessary material. According to Prince Constantine Alexios AfD, sources he don't like he always said that these are "run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip regardless of truthfulness". Pls don't overtine. Some your opinion are disgusting for me. I'm ashamed of you. Ok VocalIndia (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit harsh and unnecessary. I'm just trying to explain my line of thinking. I wish more editors would apply the "complete nobody" test to people who are mostly known for their relation to a notable person (such as being a notable person's child, parent, sibling, or spouse). The connection to monarchy here doesn't really matter; I find similar or slightly greater depth of coverage about Jasmine Jordan (daughter of Michael Jordan), and I don't think that's WP:Significant coverage indicative of WP:Notability and hence suitability for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, either. TompaDompa (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I thought, you are not basing your argument on any line of the Wikipedia policy and guideline. There is nothing that says that WP:Significant coverage has to reach that particular "depth" of the coverage you desire. The only thing that it says is that it has to be more than trivial mentions and has to be covered over multiple sources over a long period of time. In this case, we have multiple articles focusing on the article subject specifically providing abundant amount of information. Wikipedia does not by itself decide who is a "complete nobody". We rely on sources to decide that and if sources directly cover them, then they are notable. What they have accomplished in life by themselves, what they are primarily known for, or the reasons for why sources have decided to cover them to begin with are irrelevant. I don't know about Jasmine Jordan but if she has similar level of coverage, then she deserves her own article. I won't be the one to create one for her though since I have never been interested in her or her father. StellarHalo (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken; I'm basing it on the notability guideline WP:Notability (people), more specifically WP:BASIC, which says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. and If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Note the explicit focus on depth of coverage. WP:BASIC also says (in an explanatory footnote) that Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. Again, depth. Not breadth. Not duration. Not volume. Depth. The explanatory footnote in WP:ANYBIO likewise uses the exact phrase "in depth" no fewer than four times. Whether coverage of a person is WP:Significant coverage is determined by its depth.

The reason I say we should apply the "complete nobody" test is that we should start out with the assumption that somebody is not notable even if they are famous, and I think it's easier not to apply a double standard if we take the time and effort to consciously consider whether we would have considered the same coverage significant if it had been about somebody we had never heard about. It is indeed true that What they have accomplished in life by themselves, what they are primarily known for, or the reasons for why sources have decided to cover them to begin with are irrelevant., but do editors in general disregard those factors when assessing the notability of individual people or are they influenced/biased by prior knowledge (or lack thereof) of the subject? My impression is that the latter is way more likely. TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying so say is that there is nothing in that notability guideline that says that "significant coverage" or "substantial depth of content" must reach the specific standard you are seeking. If we are going by the few specifics that are included, multiple news articles addressing a specific person with various types of information about him in details are not mere mention in passing or simple directory entry. In addition, multiple sources could even be combined to establish notability if one does not suffice. Again, the guideline does not say that this type of information or coverage is trivial or lacking in depth and having multiple of them only add to this article's notability credential. StellarHalo (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what constitutes significant coverage is ultimately a judgment call. I don't think the combined coverage from these sources adds up to substantial depth of coverage, but others may disagree (and evidently some do). TompaDompa (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search. WP:GNG is met.BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.