Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Georgia (country)

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (country). 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Georgia (country)|~~~~}} 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Georgia (country). For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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 Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Georgia (country)/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Georgia

LGBT history in Georgia

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

Redirect per wp:2DABS, unless there are more. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sexuality and gender, Disambiguations, Georgia (country), and Georgia (U.S. state). --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is merge with LGBT history in Georgia and move that to LGBT in Georgia. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no primary topic, so the base name needs to host a disambiguation page per WP:NOPRIMARY. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARY Demt1298 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No primary topic. PamD 07:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both LGBT history in Georgia and LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT in Georgia, making the latter the host DAB instead of a redirect to just one of them. I agree with other !votes that each should be kept as a form of disambiguation as there is no a clear primary topic between the two, however I don't see why we can't redirect this to a more general article title which broadly covers the history and rights articles together. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARYas above. The merge between two pages not under discussion in this AfD may well be a good idea, but (a) I don't see why they should then assume the status of primary topic over an eponymous country, so the merged title should remain LGBT history in Georgia (U.S. state), (b) neither of the pages for merge are the subject of this AfD so it should be done as a merge discussion, (c) that merge would, in any case need to precede a following RM discussion, and page moves are not AfD outcomes. So all of that can be pursued separately. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure a merge suggestion can form part of a discussion in an AfD, especially as renaming of pages is not actually a necessity to achieve that proposal. I also have no clue what you mean by point "a", perhaps there is a weak explanation on my part. Either way, I was clear that I agreed with the "keep" !votes in keeping the page as a means of disambiguating between two articles without a primary, but as the nom specifically mentioned the LGBT in Georgia (rights) article, I figured i'd offer a view on that too.

Besides, do we really need to have two DABs for the "history" and "rights" when we can just change LGBT in Georgia into a DAB article linking to all four? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, a merge would be a nice idea to address separately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOPRIMARY, I'm sure this happens to other articles for Georgia and Georgia. Dr vulpes (Talk) 13:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good way to disambiguate per WP:NOPRIMARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Lomtadze

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 19. Please also refer to last two AfD's. Daniel (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with WP:SIGCOV in Bloomberg News (2020, 2022, both available via The Wikipedia Library if you want to review), Forbes (authored by staff and thus reliable), Radio Tavisupleba (in Georgian), and Fortuna.ge (in Georgian). Most recently, there's SIGCOV of Lomtadze in BBC and Vedomosti on his purchase of the Wycombe Wanderers. I've also trimmed some of the fluff and added some of these sources to the article. It still needs more cleanup, and I would support protection on the page to address the history of COI/UPE editing -- but the sources show he meets the notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The Forbes article is by "former staff". There's no reason to believe it had meaningful editorial oversight. —Cryptic 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)~~ Never mind; the byline was changed after publication (what a rotten thing to do). Contemporary archive lists the author as staff. —Cryptic 02:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As AfD1 closer, just stating I haven't had time or interest to review changes and support whatever conclusion emerges here. As I said in the DRV, it was probably time for a new discussion since much can change in two years. Star Mississippi 18:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kazakhstan, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes article presented above is more about the company than this person. The Bloomberg articles are mostly about this person, but more about the companies that lose money. I can only find a BBC article that he bought a football/soccer club, which is minimally about this person and more about the transaction and is mostly quotes [1] from the person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the foreign language sources? And the Forbes source is definitely SIGCOV of Lomtadze. It's a long feature and he is discussed in at least half the paragraphs, and it includes numerous biographical details. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still leaning delete. This is a fundamentally, and I think irreparably, biased article about a person who's spent a considerable amount of money on PR (for example, the purchase of the minor-league football team mentioned above). A neutral article is perhaps possible. It wouldn't look anything like this. —Cryptic 02:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Notability is not the issue, although it appears borderline from the sources: the person is certainly rich enough to arrange for whatever ostensibly third-party coverage he wants. The issue is that, as noted in the DRV and in the last AfD, this article is an exercise in self-promotion, a product of undeclared paid editing, and in the face of such a campaign there is little chance of our article staying neutral. The current article should be deleted and recreated only after submission to AfC of a draft by an established editor with no ties to the subject; such a new article should also reflect any possibly (if not likely) unflattering aspects of this person's career. Sandstein 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a strange reading of our guidelines to insist that a WP:BLP must include unflattering information. I’m sure said info exists (I added a Bloomberg story about a big hit to the guy’s net worth, and there’s nothing stopping other editors from finding and adding it), but to make the inclusion of negative information a prerequisite for having an article on a living person seems unsupported by policy. As for your requirement for AFC, the article was substantially edited by PaulW, a long established editor, and accepted at AFC by Dr Vulpes, another long established editor, which is indeed what triggered this discussion, which would seem to meet your condition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs are required to adhere closely to NPOV, and NPOV indicates that subjective and effusive praise is out of place in what purports to be encyclopedic content. An insistence that our content comply with NOT is not inconsistent with the biographies of living persons policy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the effusive praise? I'm not seeing it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage provided by Dclemens1971, which establish notability. There may be some bias in the tone of the article but that can be removed via cleanup. I strongly disagree with Cryptic’s claim of this bias being irreperable.Frank Anchor 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SIGCOV identified and further explanations by User:Dclemens1971. AFDISNOTCLEANUP also applies. gidonb (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 227 (1956)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Georgia (country). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG, nomination and potentially WP:HOAX (this may very well have happened). I can't find any significant coverage of the flight, when looking up "Aeroflot Flight 227" I actually came upon a "Fake plane crash" Fandom page, and that's the extent of what I found. SirMemeGod  12:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Crash is not a hoax, it did happen. It is mentioned at ASN and B3A. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have links to those? It would be useful to see what info they have. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevermind, found the link on the list article Mrfoogles (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to previously mentioned article; sufficiently covered and attributed to a reliable source. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lika Bibileishvili

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

Non-notable classical musician. Feels WP:TOOSOON. Page lacks WP:RS and so does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Could not find any RS via WP:BEFORE. Cabrils (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Brodeur

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), Turkey, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a notable diplomat and meets WP:GNG and or WP:BASIC. He has served as NATO spokesperson and there are some coverage about him, though some are press releases or news conference transcript, they are reliable because they are issued by either national governments or international organisations. I found these sources [2][3][4][5][6]. I think more reliable sources are out there waiting to be picked up and if a deep search is conducted they would be found. Piscili (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, this and this are not WP:SIGCOV of Brodeur, it is him making comments in the media and not about his life and career that would be significant coverage. This is a primary source from his employer NATO. I could not open the mid.ru source. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I also found this. I think on the whole he could be considered notable based on the breadth, if not depth, of coverage. While not current consensus, I am of the opinion that a diplomat who served in three countries or international organizations ought to be considered notable. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 34

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Georgia (country). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1940s or to List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in 1947, since there are nearly zero sources about the accident. SignorPignolini

(talk) 13:43 UTC, 15 September 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based entirely on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Meltdown627 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion