Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people suspected of Russian apartment bombings

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people suspected of Russian apartment bombings[edit]

All of the information in this article is already contained in the main Russian apartment bombings article. There are also POV issues here, and in my opinion this article reads like a POV fork. Offliner (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary fork of info. largely at the main page already, and as much as I dislike this phrase, a "BLP nightmare". If indeed there's independent info. of value here, merge and rd. JJL (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJL, citing WP:POVFORK. (Igny (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- J.Mundo (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MOS. This is a typical sub-article. Main article, Russian apartment bombings is huge. These materials should be shortened/removed from main article to facilitate reading, and I removed them in the past. However, someone reinserted most of the information back. Everything here is sourced.Biophys (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as all the entries are properly sourced, there is no BLP violation, nor is there a POV slant (suspects are suspects are suspects). Where this information is located (in the main article or in this separate list), I don't care, but it should not be duplicated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:15, April 6, 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that at the moment the information is duplicated. The same info is present both here and in the main article, and it is this article that shoud be deleted. Offliner (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not clean up the main article instead? It is, after all, rather long and eligible for splitting.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:20, April 6, 2009 (UTC)

If anything, I'd rather split off the conspiracy theories and the Ryazan incident, not the list of convictions. Offliner (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could even split off Investigation of Russian apartment bombings from main article. However this does not justify deletion of this sub-article.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are less contentious ways to split the article, if indeed its length presents a problem. However, in this case official court rulings/ results of various investigations are given equal weight with the conspiracy theory that Russian government is responsible. So I could add WP:UNDUE to the list of deletion reasons. (Igny (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would recommend to split the conspiracy theory similarly to 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Igny (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete As information is already present in the main article (Russian_apartment_bombings#Suspects_and_convictions for the suspected perpetrators, and within prose for the conspiracy theory), this is essentially a double-up of information that isn't required, which doesn't make it a POVFORK, but an unrequired content fork. If the main article is getting too large and requires splitting, this should be done along the line of the Ryazan bombing, etc, etc, not like this. Even then, the article is not at the stage yet required for splitting, but rather a littl more expansion is probably required in order to push the article thru the assessment stages. 79kb is not necessarily a required stage for splitting of content. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Russavia. Rd232 ^talk 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, legitimate sub-article of Russian_apartment_bombings, which is getting rather long. What to split from this long article is a content decision and should be treated on the article talk page, not here in AfD. Martintg (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is not long at all, as almost an entire 1/3 of it is taken up with references. This is well below the threshold for any legitimate splitting of content. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment. The nominator suggested to create several other sub-articles about this subject [1], but he wants to delete this one. Why? We should keep long lists out of main articles for convenience of a reader.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2009 (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.