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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Red Square demonstration[edit]

2008 Red Square demonstration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP is not a newswire, nor a soapbox, nor a blog, nor an avenue for advocacy of ones political goals. The article is overdependent on blogs for sources, is written in an overtly WP:NPOV way (aftermath? 7 people hold up a sign, they get told to move on, there is no aftermath). There is no correspondent article in .ru wiki, so I really have to question WP:NOTADVOCATE here. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted from the Russian version for the political reasons. The subject is significant, because this is the only orotest against suppression of freedom of neighbours that took place at the central place in Russian Federation during the Russian–Georgian war. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. dima (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political reasons? Or the same reasons as presented here? And your reason is not true. First off, there was a protest outside the Georgian embassy against Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia are neighbours whose freedom is being suppressed) and there was an anti-war protest of 300-400 people in Moscow. Even if it was the only protest, there is policy which clearly needs to be looked at which overrides the desires of 7 people holding up a banner. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare the Georgians suppress their freedoms? Don't worry, mother Russia will annex them and suppress the citizens itself protect them and ethnically cleanse deal with those annoying Georgians. Seriously, your comment is so politically biased, I don't even know where to start. - makomk (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, anti-Georgian rallies are completely in line with the policies of the current Russian regime and they don't meet any resistance from the authorities. On the other hand, political dissent has become so rare in modern Russia that I consider the 2008 Red Square demonstration to be a notable one. Hence, my vote Keep. I would not also object to the merger with 1968 Red Square demonstration as a last resort.--Kober^Talk 05:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, trim down, improve. Political dissent is not rare, what is rare is rather harmless outcome to the detainees. Not accused of extremism, not shot in the head in police car - sort of christmas tale in August. NVO (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. If it was just seven people waving a banner on its own, it wouldn't be notable. Considering the symbolism - and more importantly the police reaction and political climate - and it becomes obvious that this is far more than that. - makomk (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any notable event described in news qualifies for inclusion. The event is clearly notable, as follows from publications in multiple reliable sources. It is also notable in the historical context of a similar demonstration in 1968. No evidence of soapboxing. The sources are not blogs. NPOV problems if any should be fixed without deleting the article.Biophys (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree fully with Kober on this. Närking (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article about this demonstration in Russian Wikipedia had been already deleted as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of current news events or backup copy of personal political blogs.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not news. There does not seem to be any enduring impact beyond the flurry of initial news coverage. RayAYang (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#NEWS, not notable, a measly 7 protesters, obviously a soapboxing article for anti-Russia/Russian government users. No enduring impact beyond initial minor news coverage. That it was "covered in multiple reliable sources" is neither here nor there, all news both big and minor is covered by multiple sources, that's how "news" works.--Miyokan (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, neutral, objective, nobody cares about the Russian wikipedia. Ostap 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As I said before, the described event is nothing more that a disorderly conduct incident (what they call мелкое хулиганство in Russia) and not some notable demonstration worth paying attention to (unlike a Dissenters March, for instance). Moreover, I tend to think that this whole event was a pre-paid provocation, but that's my personal opinion. KNewman (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting comment of yours. The 1968 Red Square demonstration was also described by the Soviet authorities as a disorderly conduct ("hooliganism"), and participants declared "insane". Perhaps this demonstration is also the beginning of a new dissident era in Russia. Highly notable!Biophys (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reliable source for this being a new era? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor do we allow original research. A short (and very limited at that) burst of news does not create notability. Additionally, when the photographer who took these photos just happens to be the very same person who's very blog where this has created a sensation and all this talk, can indicate there is advocacy going on here. At the very most, it deserves a passing mention at 1968 Red Square demonstration, not its own article. Can I ask Biophys, which one are you in the photos? ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Biophys is Georgian:) DonaldDuck (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Although this is hardly relevant, do you think I am a Georgian "ethnically" or I am a Georia citizen? No, I am none of that. But perhaps "we are all Georgians" - people who object aggression and occupation, as one Russian observer said.Biophys (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look Biophys, if you're going to lie about this, then I will show people the proof.--Miyokan (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What proof? My Georgian passport? I do not have one and never had. My old Soviet passport with printed "ethnic origin"? That was not "Georgian". My DNA sample or Genealogy tree? You would be very disappointed.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • ("What proof?") So you consent to me showing my proof?--Miyokan (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know ;) Hence why I asked...just a friendly dig is all. I think Kober is in there too. ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi there, Biophys! Be it known that if a group of people wants to organize a demonstration of any kind on the Red Square, they have to obtain a permission from the authorities. I'm pretty sure that we mortals can't obtain this permission in 99.9% of the cases, it's the same as asking for a permission to have a barbeque on the White House lawn or sit down for a beer on a stoop at Downing Street, 10. Red Square is really a sacred place, it's that simple. This is why people get pushed around or arrested by the militia on the Red Square, so whenever things like this demonstration happen on the Red Square, there's no need for the freedom-of-speech hysteria. It's absolutely groundless. KNewman (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is precisely why Soviet authorities called this a "hooliganism" in 1968. There is absolutely nothing "sacred" in Red Square or White House lawn. These are not shrines. Biophys (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't mean it in the religious sense of the word, silly! As always, any discussion regarding freedom of speech in Russia is useless here in Wikipedia, anyway. Do what you wish with this article. So long. KNewman (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I notice that the Russian article after being deleted has been moved to Wikinews. That is obviously a much more suitable location for it, is this able to be transwikied also? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable events Grey Fox (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and well-sourced. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for current and historic relevance; if need be, at least merge relevant content into the 1968 article. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article as article. This event is directly related to the Russian-Georgian war. This relation was immediately recognized by the journalists, who begun to make pictures and audio and video records, and especially, by the police officers, who tried to destroy all the documental records of the event. (In a case of hooliganizm, the police, contrary, would have to keep all the records as evidence for the court.) Perhaps, the demonstration would be just a "news", if the protesters could simply show their banner, cry about freedom, distribute their statement, talk to the people, answer their questions, and then peacefully pack back their banner and go to their homes (if necessary, with moderate protection from the police against the extremist supporters of war). But the brutal actions of the police officers made it historical EVENT. dima (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So these journos just happened to be walking at that area at the exact right time? You are attempting to engage in advocacy here. If this is related to the war, then merge it here. this group of 8 Ossetians also made the news (in multiple sources) standing in the Hague holding up signs accusing Saakashvili of genocide; is 2008 Ossetian protest in The Hague in need of creation? No, because it doesn't long-term notability and to do so is to engage in advocacy, and that clearly is not allowed on WP. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, you made several unsupported statements. Now I comment only your "So": it does not matter. 40 years ago, all the eyevithness of the Demonstraiton of August, 25, "occasionally" happen to be from the same military uint. While they were not judged for false eyewithness, then, why you see anything strange if journalists happened in time? Journalists are supposed to be interested in events more, than just Soviet soldiers; and the journalists were not from the same newspaper. Also note that journalists did not pretend to visit the "GUM" shop while it was closed, as one of those soldiers claimed. So, the analogy with the 40 year old event is deeper than you think. dima (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2008 (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.