Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrest of Pavel Durov

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mailer diablo (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 27 August 2024 (k). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arrest of Pavel Durov

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

Arrest of Pavel Durov (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)

This is a recentist fork of material that really belongs in the main Pavel Durov article, which is easily short enough to be able to accommodate it. This article should be deleted, and the content merged to Pavel Durov. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The article creator's edit summary for the creation includes the line " I created the article because I think its relevance as a billionaire behind a free-speech associated messaging platform will lead to long discussions and many details about the nature of the crimes and reactions from libertarians and debates and potential protests against the arrest." This looks like an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RGW. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely familiar with GNG. I think it was WP:TOOSOON for this WP:FORK of the main article. On the other hand, I don't think you should be invoking WP:SNOW any time soon - look at the number of Merge !votes this attracted in its first 12 hours. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was merged (and I think this event is probably too big now - and developing exponentially - for that), this redirect will be kept, and hence the SNOW. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not developing exponentially. It's growing approximately linearly, mostly by having tenuously related material and the opinions of Russian government proxies added to it. There doesn't seem to be any more news about the case itself for the time being; we probably won't get that unless either the French government charges him, or the Russian government formally requests his release. As it is, we've got a very one-sided article that is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS (as well as all the other issues noted above). GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of how quickly this event is developing, but regarding your second point about the article quality, remember WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a campaigning newspaper. We're not here for what could happen, we're here for what has happened, and at the moment that's not enough to merit a separate article. If it's important for the world to read about Durov's arrest, how does putting that information in his main biography stop the world from reading it? (And I really don't think you mean 'neuralgic'.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is my discussion given. 181.39.69.107 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very high-profile case involving multiple countries and one of the most used apps in the world. If he's suddenly released without charge we can always reconsider. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Precedent shows that it is difficult to sustain articles where the arrest itself does not bear any meaningful significance; compare this article to Arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried, not Arrest of Imran Khan. The argument could be made that Russia's response heightens this article's notability—though it is expected of Russia to leverage the situation—but as it stands, there is not enough information to sustain an article without adding unnecessary information such as Russia blocking Telegram in 2018. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it notable that a large proportion of the current article is responses from within Russia, especially (though not only) from people who are either associated with the Russian government, or not notable. Who on earth is 'colonelcassad', who seems to think George Orwell was pro-censorship, for example? While you could totally merge the whole current article into Durov's main article, I think that in practice some judicious editing would be better. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - WP:TOOSOON to have separate article. If it becomes significant, it can be split. Autarch (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Take out the background and reactions, and you have a simple "person was arrested without incident" paragraph that should be covered in the bio article. The reaction section is very puffery at this point and does not show that this will have any significant long term effects. Now, if this leads to him ultimately being convicted in a well-covered trial, then we can talk about a separate article, but a simple arrest is not something that needs a separate article at this time. To also add, there is no evidence there is enduring coverage of this, which means it fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG for notability. Just being covered by the news is not a reason to create an article since WP is not a newspaper.Masem (t) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pavel Durov. This event is a news story with only news sources, and it is certainly in no way independently notable of the man himself. Zero reason for this to have its own article at this time. If you believe that this could be notable in the future and we need to wait for more info, that's further evidence it shouldn't be an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge GNG isn't the issue here, it is whether this merits a stand alone article right now. Given the lack of secondary sources I cannot see how this merits a stand alone article given articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not similar to that at all. For a start, Crowdstrike is not made by Microsoft, and is a clearly distinct topic from Windows, so such a merger would be obviously inappropriate. For another thing, the Crowdstrike outage grounded entire airlines and caused global disruption. So far, this arrest is inconveniencing exactly one billionaire. I still don't see how this fork is justified - this information would be better merged into the main Pavel Durov article, except for the increasingly irrelevant laundry list of reactions, which should largely be deleted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable self-sufficient exessevely sourced subject. The text is already looking larger than original Pavel Durov article text. --ssr (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because people keep adding useless non-action, talk-only, reaction stuff to the article. This is the "cheap" way to make any topic seem important, to catalog every possible reaction mentioned out there, but that's not encyclopedic, we should be documenting long-term aspects and any actual action-driven responses that would have an impact. — Masem (t) 12:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      News-like activity on Wikipedia should be handled by Wikinews, as the rule WP:NOTNEWS literally and correctly concludes. After that, the notable output should be absorbed in Wikipedia with Wikinews keeping archives of the news processed. And that is the clear rule: WP:NOTNEWS. Why it is not obeyed? As long as it is not, the limitless "deletion nominations of news events" with, as you said is the true "useless non-action, talk-only, reaction stuff". The community, or the WMF just have to make the rules obeyed correctly. Their own rules. BTW, the article will be kept. "Useless" were (will be) all efforts to delete it, starting with this nomination and votes "delete" and "merge". Just useless. --ssr (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is involving one of the most used messaging apps, and deserves it's own page. The page is well sourced, and it seems early to delete this article, as the story is still evolving. OnlyNanotalk 13:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's too early to have this page, as the story is still evolving. The alternative is that every single time a news story breaks anywhere, we create an article as though it's going to be the next big thing, and then go back and delete the ones that turn out not to be. That's ridiculous. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Yes, there are many sources covering this, but that doesn't mean it needs its own article. If it turns out that this has a significant lasting impact, then we can create a separate article, but it is too soon to determine this. As for the size of the article, much of the background section would be covered in Durov's page, while most of the reactions section can simply be deleted. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The event is recent but has received broad coverage in reliable sources (notability criteria). Its verifiable with reliable references. Generally adheres to NPOV. No Original Research. Adheres to BLP guidelines. I would argue that the article is too small, as it could benefit from additional context, especially regarding the legal implications and historical precedents for such an arrest, but the quality is currently more than acceptable relatively speaking. As time passes it should be evaluated for recentism, ensuring that it maintains relevance over time, but in its current state, there seem to be many large institutions and people that believe this to be a significant event. With regards to Merge: The broadness of topics included (social media, moderation, regulation, free speech) and the already extensive coverage would be an indication of this being suitable as its own article, and something broader than what is suitable on the bio of one man. The fact that there is some fluff only necessitates the pruning and improvement of the article. 148.252.104.241 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pavel Durov. This is a fork of Pavel Durov, and the question is not whether there is notability for the information. The question is whether this is a bad fork. Is it a POVFORK? Perhaps, if we say the coverage of this one event of this notable individual has become skewed out of proportion with the subject's importance. Even if not a POVFORK, it is a redundant fork, because this can and should be contained in a section about Durov. There are no strong reasons for an article split. The parent article is not too long, and this would be a strange split in any case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. The incident should have an article on their own. It's unnecessary to merge back into one article because it would be difficult to navigate. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does WP:TOOSOON support keeping this article, which was definitely created too soon? And it's our duty as editors to make the articles easy to navigate; we could improve this content by cutting out most of the increasingly irrelevant 'reactions'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also frustrating that my !vote directly above this one points out that SIGCOV is simply not the correct consideration here. This is a content fork. Also what secondary sources do we even have about this arrest? It all looks like news reporting to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the “Background” and “Arrest” sections are already way too long to be properly merged into the main article, and they contain very relevant information about the whole story. Without those details, I’d struggle to understand why he was arrested in first place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we copied those in without change, those sections contain under 900 words. The subject's page is currently under 1800 words. The combined article would still be at the very short end of WP:SIZERULE. No split is justified on size. And bear in mind that as much of that information is already on the parent page, we don't need to copy it in, even assuming it is all even due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we merge this into the parent article, we'd run into the problem of undue weight. I really don't think that he's notable for his arrest so that a large chunk of the article documents it. In case it is, then the split is justified.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The BG info would not be needed. The reaction section here is absolutely overloaded with useless reactions (particularly on yet if he will be actually charged rather than just detained) Masem (t) 20:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Masem. It is a curious argument that we should keep an article because it contains information that would be undue for the subject. That's a delete argument. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the article is too long to be merged into a parent article which is not much longer in its current shape (I'd have probably supported a merger had the article been much shorter but still clear enough to explain what happened.). Masem is right that some content may be redundant and should be removed, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page with a proper action before this RfD concludes. The worst-case scenario is to wait for this RfD to conclude with a "Merge" result and let the closing admin merge only parts of the article without discussing what's relevant to remain. That's practically censorship.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is AfD, not RfD. The closing admin will not carry out the merge. If this AfD closes as merged, a closing admin is likely to just place a header on the article indicating the decision, and then it is up to any editors to complete the merge. When a merge is carried out, some or all of the content on this page may be copied to the merge target. Undue information and repetitive information need not be merged. See WP:MERGE. I think you are arguing against that outcome under a misapprehension about the process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy it (this sounds like 'let's first agree to merge and then decide what to merge'). Please first remove the unnecessary content from the article to convince me support a merger. I simply can't support merging the article in the current shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's never been a requirement that when merge is suggested as an option at AFD to pre-determine what needs to be merged. A good merge argument at AFD will include what probably can be merged and what can be left behind, as that strengthens the merge rational, but its not a requirement to do so, and if an AFD closes as merge with no clear indication of what should be merged, then a talk page discussion can be opened to determine that, if no editor is bold enough to make the merge themselves after the AFD closes. Masem (t) 00:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Yes, the event is wholly notable, "it's important", or whatever, but this is regardless an unnecessary fork of the article on the human being; even if we were to merge every word of the arrest article into the main article, we would be well away from having any size concerns, and I do not expect such extensive merging to be necessary; around half of this arrest article covers reactions that could be trimmed to two sentences; the same goes for the "background". If anything, it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article, not to delete one; Wikipedia policy is not to "create an article on everything that gets a mention in the news" and then see if an article is really necessary, but the other way around. I don't see any further developments happening very rapidly; he was arrested, some people said "this is a bad thing", and that's about it for now. If somehow Telegram were to shut down following Durov's arrest, I would support a "2024 Telegram shutdown" article with section on Durov's arrest, but for now we do not need an article on an inconsequential arrest. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the standard procedure is to put it as an addition to the person's article and if it turns out that there is a reason it can become a separate article. Pallikari (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to save server space. Nashhinton (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the server space is just fine. Don't worry about it. Kline • talk • contribs 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because I think the event can fully be covered in the page for Durov himself. --Dynamo128 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It is independently notable, and it's quickly evolving. We have no deadline and can decide if it can be merged once the situation has stabilized. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge The usual violation of WP:NOTNEWS of constructing a bloated bio-fork out of every news story of what is surely just the first step in a significant episode in this fellow's life. "no deadline" cuts both ways: there's no penalty for waiting for a story to resolve itself before writing about it, especially since we don't actually have any real idea of how significant this is going to turn out to be. Edit it down to a more succinct and encyclopedic level of detial and put it in his bio for now. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, no need to be in a hurry to merge. This is most certainly a notable event which raises this guy's profile to the level of Assange and Snowden. The bio of the "Mark Zuckerberg of Russia" was only about one-third the size of Zuck's bio before Durov's arrest. Merging would fix that discrepancy if nobody insisted on culling the content due to "undue" and "BLP1E" concerns. That's a big if. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the argument is to keep information here because it might be culled there as undue, then this is a WP:POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the summary of this article in Durov's bio should have the same POV as the detailed article here. Just a matter of WP:Summary style. wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary style guidance is about splitting an article when the parent becomes too large to contain the whole. That clearly does not apply here. The parent article can contain a full encyclopaedic coverage of the event of his arrest in his article without coming anywhere close to a size split. His article is the place for this. There is no merit in making the reader read a second page for relevant encyclopaedic coverage of this event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be technically true today, but seems unlikely to still be true a week from today. Hence my "no rush" vote. Seems a pointless exercise to merge now, only to be forced to split it back a week or two from now. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because there is a Pavel Durov article.→StaniStani 01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge now while the scope is limited to Durov. Sure, as a Telegram user, I also worry about the implications of Durov's arrest. Yet, who's to say it will make waves in the world in the way that Assange and Snowden's actions had? What if things just return to the status quo? If everyone's fears do become true and the repercussions grow beyond Durov, we can always fork to the larger perspective. For comparison, look at Snowden's article versus the 2010s global surveillance disclosures. Spade6179 (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep and don't merge (though obs the main bio needs a small summary). Already massively independently notable at the time of the nom, and each passing hour adds stacks of new sources to the already overwhelming keep case. There's all sorts of notable aspects much covered in an article on the arrest rather the min bio - such as calls for tech innovators to relocate from Europe to US, the pov that the arrest was justifiable for crime fighting & internet safety reasons - and then the counter arguments to all of this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the alternative Merge. -- Dynam1te3 (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article will expand fairly soon because arrests lead to indictments similar to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. The tally including me and proposer is currently 16-18 (keep-merge). Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an unprecedented event with major geopolitical speculation attached. I see it as having similar notability as Censorship of TikTok, for example. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:5084 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if charges are laid and bail is refused as the situation will become similar to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange or if this incident leads to the shutdown of Telegram, but merge if bail is provided or released without charge and no substantive changes are made to Telegram. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arrest_of_Pavel_Durov&oldid=1242590830"