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. There is absolutely no chance that this will be deleted at this time regardless of whether it should be per policy. Consensus is so strong that a no consensus would not fly, but this could probably be revisted in a timelime similar to that of a no consensus once the war is not a current event. Star Mississippi 02:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaly Gerasimov[edit]

Vitaly Gerasimov (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)

Non-notable individual per WP:BIO1E. The only significant coverage this person receives is about his alleged death in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article makes no notable claims about this person, and no sources can be found prior to this week that confer notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's not notable just for being killed (although it certainly is a rare event for a general to be killed in action), so WP:BIO1E doesn't apply. He's notable for being a major-general and chief of staff of one of the armies involved in a major conflict. So it is not true to say that the article makes no notability claims either, since it lists his post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, I must have missed the WP policy that says that all major generals and chiefs of staff are automatically notable, even if there are no reliable sources that cover them in any significant way (apart from their alleged death in an ongoing war). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your sarcasm implies that you are making emotional decisions about this issue. 84.42.146.147 (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read through the !votes, and it seems like many are basing their keep arguments on criteria similar to those in the deprecated NSOLDIER (which supported many of the still-existing military biographies). Things like rank and awards and command positions were previously considered proxy indicators for notability, but are no longer per this Feb 2021 RfC. Schazjmd (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject has been decorated with a high-level state medal (the Medal "For the Return of Crimea") and was a high-ranking officer. His post was equal to a brigadier general in the US (as seen here). As Necrothesp stated, the subject was also a "chief of staff of one of the armies involved in a major conflict". Plus, of course, he was killed in action. With all that taken into account, I don't see how WP:BIO1E could apply. --Kbabej (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  these are all assertions with no evidence 2607:FEA8:2CDC:DE00:10EF:1678:C8D7:B1B2 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is not notable just for his (presumed) death. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Okay this has to be a joke @ScottyWong:. A Wikipedia page of a key person of the Ukrainian war and a long-time associate in Russia's army has to be deleted? Plus translated and acclaimed by other editions of Wikipedia. Further strengthened by numerous News Sources from all over the world, confirmed publication or not. I suggest you to read first the Wiki page, and not just skimming certain words, before tagging to deletion. --Likhasik (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If he's so notable, then why didn't he have an article prior to the reporting of his death? I know that's not a reason to delete an article, but it's a curious question, isn't it? If this guy was so obviously notable as you say, then surely he would've had an article already. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Lots of subjects get posthumous attention and then articles are created to cover their entire lives. Bobbi Kristina Brown is a perfect example of that, and now it is a GA. Not saying that this will ever rise to the level of GA, but I'm not aware of any policy that states we cannot write an article on someone when their death brings attention to their lives. Kbabej (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I never claimed that there is such a policy. However, if he was notable prior to his death, then please provide the sources that establish that notability per WP:GNG, because I have been able to find exactly zero. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scottywong Have you looked into Russian Wiki sources? There are some Military-state-run papers about him. Maybe check it out. But for real though, I hope this article won't be deleted. Info is info and somewhere out there someone will need it, even in the future. --Likhasik (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to add some sources aggregated an collated from various Wikipedia versions

  • https://russiandefpolicy.com/2016/07/29/russia-day-promotion-list/ This is from 2016
  • https://informnapalm.org/en/commanders-of-15th-mrb-ready-to-carry-out-kremlin-s-criminal-orders/ This one is from 2017. This is used by French Wiki.
  • https://archive.fo/UfJ94 https://archive.fo/tStOn These ones are covered by the previous URL I've sent dating from 2014 or 2013.

  You can lurk on the informnapalm site and see various Russian sources stating his life before the 2022 Invasion. He was also a veteran of Chechen war BTW with his first name mentioned in news sources way back 2013. ru:Герасимов, Виталий Петрович#Литература From 2013 and 2017. In the reference section, there are also mentions of his notability going back to 2019 albeit only Russian sources (Or Ukrainian too?) Likhasik (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Likhasik: Thanks, these are the closest things I've seen to sources for Gerasimov. But, I have to say, if these are the best sources that can be found, I don't find them particularly impressive. The sources that discuss him in the most depth are blogs. Others are press releases from the Russian Ministry of Defense, primary sources which can't be used to establish notability. In most of these articles, all we learn about Gerasimov is that he was born in 1977, grew up in Kazan, and attained various ranks in the military. There's very little of substance here. I still maintain that the only thing in his life that stirred up any real coverage in the media is his death. This doesn't mean that we can't mention him in Wikipedia, it just means that he doesn't necessarily need to have an entire article devoted to him. It's especially problematic because if we can't find sources about him, then there will be nothing to write about him except that he was born in 1977, grew up in Kazan, attained various military ranks, got some medals, and then died. That's not much of an article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless expanded He is mentioned at Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Notable_deaths, which is enough if has done nothing else notable. Currently the rest of the article only lists stages in his career, but does not mention any significant contributions or achievements. Moreover, his is the fifth-highest rank, the least of the General/flag officers. PJTraill (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, he is said to have commanded two brigades – does that make him notable? PJTraill (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this individual prior to their death, then yes. If not, then no. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point to a policy that shows a subject's death cannot be counted toward notability if covered in RS? Kbabej (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kbabej: Yes, WP:BIO1E. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're missing my point. I did not say his death was the only thing making the subject notable. The point I am making is that a subject's death can count towards notability. There's no policy stating it cannot. When his death is combined with his high rank, his state award, and being involved in a major conflict, GNG is easily met. Kbabej (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Having a relatively high rank in the military is not automatically notable. Notability is tested by the GNG, which requires multiple, reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way. If the only sources that pass GNG are about a single event, then WP:BIO1E applies. If you can provide other sources that cover the subject in a significant way prior to his death, then he would be notable. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is no argument that can be supported predicated on the claim that a notable person that has not yet had a page written is less eligible because of an additional notable event occurring. Western generals get articles created constantly, not only because of their stars (or equivalent), but also the positions to which they are elevated. Vitaly Gerasimov is/was the CoS of the 41st Combined Arms Army and a major general. His death should not be THE reason an article gets created, as such an article is expected on the person already.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If he was notable prior to his death, then where are the multiple reliable sources that covered him significantly (as required by WP:GNG) prior to his death? If you can show them to me, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. I've looked but couldn't find any, but I know there could be Russian language sources that I've missed. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Response: I, again, discount the argument that because an article for a notable bio does not yet exist precludes it from being built when yet another point of notability arises. As to the sources for numerous points of notability other than death have not yet been added: they have an infinitely-greater chance of being added when the existing article has not been deleted. Deleting the article will actively work to further the bio's supression, as a perception of on non-notability will have been (falsely) built. I applaud your arguments in the effort to keep this notable bio from remaining, but they still do not meet the expectations for deletion.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: He is only notable for dying. When people refer to his rank and being chief of staff as notability, this was not grounds for an article before; really people mean it is notable that someone of this high position was killed. How many CoS of Russian armies, or even Western armies, have articles? I would agree if a 1-star US/UK general were killed in Afghan or Iraq they'd likely have an article, but they'd also have substantial and sustained coverage in RSs for years after. A casualty of a war with thousands of Russian deaths is not likely to attract sustained or substantial coverage going forward in Western sources; it will certainly fail WP:10YT, in my opinion. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter if it has "coverage going forward in Western sources". Any language sources are acceptable on the English WP. How do we know the subject won't have sustained coverage, especially in Russian and Ukrainian sources? Kbabej (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Provide the Russian and Ukrainian language sources if you have them. Otherwise, if the sources only cover his death, then his death can be mentioned in the dozens of other articles we have about the ongoing war. Without sources covering this individual outside of this one event, the only thing we can write about him is that he died. If he ends up having sustained coverage in the future, then we can revisit the decision, but until that happens it's WP:CRYSTAL. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added the template for the Russian article onto the page. You can see the sources there for yourself. They include a listing of multiple state-level awards, including:

  • Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" 4th degree with swords
  • Order of Courage
  • Order "For Military Merit"
  • Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", 2nd class
  • Medal "For military valor" 1st class
  • Medal "For Distinction in Military Service" 1st, 2nd and 3rd class
  • Medal "For the return of the Crimea"
  • Medal "Participant of the military operation in Syria"

  Kbabej (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any indication of how rare these awards/elite/prestigious these awards are? Soldiering comes with awards. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're going about this backwards. At best, having awards and getting a high rank are all indications that a person is likely to be notable, because usually there are reliable sources that cover those things. However, it still has to be shown that there are sources to pass WP:GNG, and despite the cascade of Keep votes here, I still haven't seen a single one, both here and at the Russian Wikipedia page. The only sources with significant coverage discuss a single event, his recent death. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  On this point, these awards are far from the highest tier awards/orders for soldiering in Russia. See Orders, decorations, and medals of Russia. The highest order he received, the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" 4th degree, is the 9th highest order in the hierarchy ("with swords" may make it actually lower). The highest medal is the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" 2nd class which is the third highest award. Soldiers get awards; listing them without context does not indicate notability. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Soldiers get awards", and notability guidelines are clear that getting senior awards creates a presumption of notability. You have done absolutely nothing to rebut that. Atchom (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The question I asked is whether the awards listed are sufficiently senior awards and the point I made is that there is reason to suppose these are not particularly senior awards. With respect, you and others have not dealt with this point. Consider the US context: if someone gets a silver star, i.e. the third highest military award in the US and apparently equivalent to Gerasimov's highest medal, does that individual have an "presumption of notability" because they got a "senior award"? If it were combined with a few bronze stars, would they then be notable? Likely not, not even if they were a brigadier. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comparing decorations across different countries is an imperfect exercise; this has to be contextual. By way of international comparison, in the UK context, a CBE has been consistently held to be enough to presume notability for AfD purposes, and a CBE is only the third highest rank *of the Order of British Empire*, with dozens of decorations above it. Make it what you will. Atchom (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not intended to be the Western-world.Wikipedia; it is intended to be an encyclopedia about knowledge of the world that happens to be written in the English language. We are aware of our geographical bias, with no magic solution, and the need for WP:RS constrains us; however, being aware of the bias is the first step towards trying to correct it. Boud (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As you point out, reliable sources tend to be Western sources and I don't have any information about how non-Western sources will deal with this going forwards. Perhaps I could have phrased it better! The other distinction is that UK/US generals, or senior officers who died in Iraq/Afghan, were one-offs whereas two one-star generals have been killed in a matter of weeks because of the scale of the conflict. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable as a significant Russian military leader, just as in US Marine Corps and air force major-generals have their own list articles given that so many already have Wikipedia articles. His death is notable too – sourced to two independent sources (UA govt + Bellingcat). Boud (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In the US, major generals are two-star ranks. In Russia, it's a one-star rank. Is there a list of brigadiers on Wikipedia? Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant Russian Military General. He was awarded a medal for the return of Crimea. His death is not the only reason he is notable, but I do admit it does play a big part. There are also multiple Russian languages sources about him, as shown in his Russian Wikipedia Page. That page also shows that the nom's statement of : "no sources can be found prior to this week that confer notability." is simply false. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Russian WP page has 6 sources. Four of them are about his recent death. The other two are dead links (for me, anyway). I tried to find an archived version of these pages but could not. If you are aware of a reliable source (in any language) that focuses significantly on this individual, and is not about his recent death, I'd love to see it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See my reply for live versions of the dead links. All you had to do was to go to the Wayback Machine! This isn't difficult. Atchom (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Leading figure of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and apparently senior military officer on either side killed so far. Proposal to delete is either not serious, an effort to minimize Russian participation in the war, or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyzex (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This one seems obvious. Brad (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A high profile conflict and a highly placed leader in it. --Dan Carkner (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep deputy army commander of a army/corps sized formation in an active ongoing war. Also useful as an expansion of the wider set of Russian Armed Forces biographies. We should have biographies for all relevant senior officers of the Russian invading force. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Everything everyone said above. Plus, there are reliable sources. For instance, he was notable enough to have his biography printed in in Российское военное обозрение (Russian Military Review) in 2019, accessible at https://web.archive.org/web/20210525120433/https://sc.mil.ru/files/morf/military/archive/RVO-9_sayt(1).pdf. This incidentally also sources his awards, which would qualify him under WP:ANYBIO. Also, the nominator's interpretation of WP:SINGLEEVENT seems to be flawed to me. We wouldn't have an article titled "Death of Vitaly Gerasimov", which is what the examples in that particular guideline suggest. His death is notable within the context of a career which is already notable in and of itself. Atchom (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a primary source, which can't be used to establish notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No it’s not. Primary sources are things like Gerasimov’s diary, or his actual military service record. A bio published by the Russian Army is a secondary source. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Government documents such as official bios are considered primary sources. It's not a secondary source as he served in the Russian Army, which certainly has an interest in talking up its officers, especially during an active conflict. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats simply not correct. Government documents like Gerasimov’s service record are primary sources. If a government employee takes those documents and writes up a biography of Gerasimov, that is a secondary source. It may not be independent of the subject (which may be what you’re conflating here, and disqualifies the source from counting toward notability), but that is a different question altogether. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what a primary source is. Brad (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The general was only notable due to his death. Relatively little is known about him with the exception of a few awards. That is hardly worthy of an entire article.KD0710 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I agree with the above comments in favour of keeping the article. Interestingly, 12 non-English Wikipedias now have an article on Gerasimov (see here for where his photograph appears). Amitchell125 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't expect the photograph to remain. That it's of him has been challenged, and I think we have no licence to use it. If it is of him, it's highly implausible that the photograph's copyright has resided with any Ukrainian authorities. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His article meets WP:GNG. Also other Wikipedias have an article on him. Being on a forign language Wikipedia means the subject was notable if we have an English page on the subject. Felicia (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Kbabej. There are thousands and thousands of people who only get an article after their death. Thriley (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rank and operational experience make him notable. Robert Brockway (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - By his rank alone and role in the invasion he is notable; WP:SINGLEEVENT is not a good reason for the deletion, as Gerasimov's death is not a major event on its own, but in the context of his position and career within the Russian military. As can be seen in the current, expanded article, he took part in several major wars of the last three decades, and he commanded important units in the Russian army. And as Atchom said, any officer who gets a somewhat detailed bio on his life published (even if it published by his own military) is probably notable. Applodion (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  It is untrue that “no sources can be found prior to this week.” has references from 2013 and 2019, for example. —Michael Z. 15:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dot-RU sources may be unavailable at the moment because of cyber warfare or Russian censorship. Try the Wayback Machine or other archive. —Michael Z. 15:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So manny voters requesting Keep Read CNN has not been able to independently verify Ukraine's claim, and Russia's defense ministry did not immediately respond to CNN's questions about Gerasimov on Tuesday, which is a national holiday in Russia. The United States also cannot confirm the Ukrainian claims, a senior US defense official said Tuesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.67.114 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does not definitively say that he was killed. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that CNN and US military authorities are talking about Vitaly Gerasimov adds to his WP:NOTABILITY - international coverage, no matter whether he's alive or dead. Boud (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. If anything, if he is later discovered to be alive his notability would be even higher. Atchom (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe there is precedent on Wikipedia for articles about military officers of roughly the notability of making the news by dying in a major conflict. A lot of articles about Iraq War leaders of lower rank exist, and the sources and adherence to notability criteria (even if just for dying) appear good. Kuralesache (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are reasons to keep the article independent of his notability, although I personally believe his notability is sufficient. Several details mentioned here may play into the articles on Russian disinformation and mutual cyber warfare in this conflict. From that point of view it is possibly more notable if he *isn’t* dead, although of course we need to carefully explain all of the uncertainty in the meantime. Also, he is easily confused with Valery Gerasimov, who is unquestionably notable and whose article is likely to repeatedly get mistakenly edited to add his death if we don’t disambiguate. Imho it is also notable that Russian generals are being killed, although I don’t claim any particular expertise in Russian generals. 04:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC) PS: Russian article has six sources, Ukrainian has eight, and they appear to be different. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC) PPS: Newsweek says Bellingcat confirms the death, also mentions the cryptophone failures, and mentions participation in Crimean and Chechen campaigns, which is interesting given what he was doing at his death Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clear pass on WP:BASIC. I don't buy the argument that because there wasn't a page about him before his death there shouldn't be one about him now. BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and that is indisputable here. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, like the others above my message, he was a leading figure in the war, and a major general in the invasion of Ukraine. he also has many notable awards (e.g. Order of Courage) and was the second general to be killed in the war (a general dying in action is rare, as Necrothesp stated) after Andrey Sukhovetsky. --e (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oh man, it's a long time I do not participate in an AfD... Multiple secondary sources have been provided, lots of coverage, the guy is clearly notable, he would have been notable even if still alive. Meets guidelines without problems. --cyclopia^speak! 14:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether alive or dead, sufficient sources exist, and have existed prior to now, to confer notability. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep he was the Chief of Staff of an entire invading army (“The 41st Arms Army”) in a major war. That alone certainly makes him notable. And he was it’s deputy commander. Plus anyone at the rank of any type of “General” is inherently very notable. But there is more — I did the math and the combined forces for which he was Chief of Staff and Deputy Commander totaled about 15,000 men. Plus he is the second highest Russian military leader to date to be killed in action in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. All of this means that he, as an historical figure, has more than enough notability. Lastly, the recent major press coverage of his death also, by itself, makes him notable. You could be a complete unknown to the world, which no significant life details at all, and yet if you (for no clear reason) suddenly got as much press coverage as he just has, you would then be notable for that reason alone, by Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesapeake77 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is so much wrong with this logic that I don't even have the brain capacity to break it all down. Curbon7 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, general, senior officer of a large formation. Wide range of sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: we have a third major general killed in this conflict, Andrei Kolesnikov.[1] There was also a colonel (the immediate rank below major-general) killed yesterday.[2] These are not so rare in this conflict. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only notable for dying = WP:BLP1E. One of many to follow on both sides. Wikipedia is not a memorial website. Pilaz (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mztourist above. Yakikaki (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A slightly odd nomination. He had a long association with the Russian military and his position on the Cheif of Staff alone should cover GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His notability is easily sourceable. Bommbass (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of high-quality secondary sources on the subject, that alone should be enough. Meeepmep (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• the only mention the "source" has for this guy is a russian military newsletter....only problem is, the brief mentions of Gerasimov were actually not referencing this vitaly guy ....its referencing this guy :Valery_Gerasimov. for all intents and purposes this vitaly guy doesnt exist, this appears to be fake news...wholesale 2607:FEA8:2CDC:DE00:10EF:1678:C8D7:B1B2 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that is what the Russians would say. We have plenty of sources on this guy. It isn't fake news if it is about a real person. Felicia (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I scanned through the rationales and was leaning towards keep, but I cannot get passed one fact, the article was created the day he was killed, to me (regardless of who he was, his rank and so on, if it wasn't for the current conflict the article would not have been created) this is a WP:SINGLEEVENT article. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Or maybe his article hasn't been created now because English Wikipedia has an (understandable) regional bias toward figures from English-speaking countries? Plenty of bios are created when the person has died; some are created even after they died! Atchom (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2022 (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.