Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galina Dodon

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. Merge discussion can be held on the talk page if desired, but it seems that there is consensus in this discussion to keep the article as-is. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galina Dodon

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

Non-notable person. Only the fact that she is the wife of the President of Moldova does not make her notable. XXN, 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article does need more substance and better referencing, we do accept national First Ladies as notable — even if they hold the position primarily by virtue of who they're married to, the position itself is still a notable public role in its own right. For that very reason, WP:NOTINHERITED specifically states that national first ladies are not deemed non-notable on "inherited" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Igor Dodon - WP:BASIC still applies, and an official biography, along with an article that rehashes that biography, is simply not enough to indicate significant coverage.
I find Bearcat's line of reasoning deficient on two grounds: first, WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not policy; second, the line about the first lady (in particular, the American first lady, who'll always have loads of coverage) is merely an example, not a dispositive finding that all spouses of national leaders are notable.
This individual's accomplishments can easily be summarized in about two lines. There's really no need for a separate article to do that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly matters whether you find my reasoning "persuasive" or not. Firstly, WP:ONLYESSAY is invalid reasoning in an AFD discussion, as essays are binding expressions of the rules that pertain in the absence of a specific reason to treat the case at hand differently from the established practice for other comparable topics. And secondly, that rule is not limited to First Ladies of the United States; we also have articles, for example, about Justin Trudeau's and Emmanuel Macron's and Jacob Zuma's and Narendra Modi's wives, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife, Theresa May's and Angela Merkel's husbands, and on and so forth — and most of them don't have the kinds of independent accomplishments that would have gotten them into an encyclopedia independently of being a national leader's spouse either. But the simple fact is that being a national leader's spouse is in and of itself a role that gets a person into an encyclopedia right on its own face, period — not because "inherited notability", but because it is a notable role in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just cited an essay to support a claim that an essay is binding. According to WP:POLICIES, which is an actual policy, "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval."

I never claimed only US first ladies are notable. I merely pointed out the example in the essay is an obvious straw man - of course the wife of the American president will always be notable. When it comes to Moldova (or Bulgaria, or Cape Verde, or Djibouti, or Estonia, or Fiji, or Sri Lanka, or Slovakia, or Tunisia, or Tajikistan, or Switzerland), the case is less clear.

It comes down to significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. If the only thing to be said about someone is that she is married to a head of state, then no, that really is not enough for standalone notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay". Congratulations, that's the most tautological nothingburger of an argument I've ever seen in almost 15 years of contributing to Wikipedia. Please note the following: "We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made."

At any rate, WP:GNG is not solely a question of whether the article's quality is already up to scratch or not — even a poorly sourced article can still be kept if it's demonstrated that the sourcing necessary to repair it with exists, regardless of whether it's actually present in the article yet or not. So for a person with a strong and properly verified notability claim, what would need to be shown to get the article deleted isn't that it's inadequate in its current state, but that it's entirely unrepairable because the depth of sourcing we require for GNG simply isn't out there to be found and added. Lots of Wikipedia articles are inadequate in their current state, but still have a valid and properly sourced notability claim that buys them the time to get better — but we keep or delete articles based on whether or not they're improvable, not just whether or not they're already perfect.

So if you really want this deleted, it's not enough to just argue that the article's current state is inadequate — the notability claim is one that Wikipedia accepts, so what would need to be shown is some hard evidence that the article can't be improved because better sources about her don't even exist. And as for those other redlinked first ladies you pointed out, it's not that they fundamentally lack basic notability — the only thing stopping any of them from happening is that nobody's gotten around to it yet. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it so happens that such sources really don't exist, at least as far as I can tell. The only other one I've been able to find, and which isn't a direct rehash of the official biography, is this. In it, we find out the following highly interesting data: in 2014, Mrs. Dodon earned a base salary of 110,568 lei, which fell to 54,075 lei the following year. In the same period, her social insurance payments amounted to 42,893 and 33,887 lei, respectively. The family owns a plot of land (0.059 hectares) and a house (422.8 m²) in Chișinău - and both are registered in Igor and Galina's name. Galina also has two bank accounts: one for social payments, totaling 16,839 lei; the other, a salary account, has 65,427 lei. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 02:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Igor Dodon, as is common for spouses and close relatives of notable people. Galina's article is really short so could easily be merged, Igor's article has very little information about his family beyond the fact that they exist (not even names), and there's no clear evidence that she's notable or there's anything much to say. If someone can find good sources in other languages, then fair enough, expand the article instead. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a presumption of notability for national First ~~Ladies~~ spouses. This is an international encyclopedia, and the community consensus is that the position affords the presumption of notability, which not limited by country or nation. So, a national legislator in Nahru is treated similarly to a national legislator in India. Once there is a presumption of notability, all that is needed is a reliably sourced statement that the subject holds that position (which could be an independent news source or an official government publication). --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that WP:POLITICIAN specifically applies to national legislators in a way it doesn't to first spouses, for which no presumption of notability has been demonstrated. I agree we should have a line about this individual in her husband's biography - one line being about the extent of what reliable sources have to say about her. However, there's really no call for a standalone article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat and Enos733. She is the First Lady of a modern nation. I would oppose a merge, though this article could be expanded and probably should be. But length or quality are not the same as notability, this is a clear keep. Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Bearcat. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:53, 11 August 2017 (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.