Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton incident

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton incident

WP:NOTNEWS. Very few English sources - it's apparently a media event in Finland and Russia, but not in the Anglosphere; wider significance isn't clear (sparked a "diplomatic row"... so?). Previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen) closed "no consensus". See also WP:BLPN#Anton incident. Rd232 ^talk 09:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Oh, and this is the first time the page has been nominated under this name - there is no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton incident - I just used the wrong WP:AFD template. Sorry for any confusion. Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this article was created by banned user Petri Krohn, a Finnish activist who uses Wikipedia as a soapbox for his cause de jour. --Martintg (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an irrelevant argument, although it is no different to editors fighting to keep Putinjugend as a soapbox for their own causes de jour. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of refs; banned users created a lot of good content.Biophys (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notable does not mean "most of the sources are in English". Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The refs are showing notability being met. Sources don't have to be in English, although there are enough English language sources where I don't think that is a problem. Tavix | Talk 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let's try to avoid using non-valid arguments here. The number of English references is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a global point of view, not an anglophone one. Who created the page is also irrelevant; only content matters. Personally, I think the incident itself is notable enough, but I don't know if we should have an article about it. I also do not like the biased way this article is written in. Offliner (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please elaborate on the "biased way"? I just re-read the article and thought it very carefully included both Finnish and Russian sources and comments. Almost every sentence is solidly referenced. Should we be less neutral about this topic, then? -- Sander Säde 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, sources don't have to be English ones, but lack of them does create a WP:V issue. I can't verify what I can't read. Should I just believe when someone tells me that's what the article says? AGF only goes so far and I've found plenty of English sources that were misrepresented. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it scrapes by on notability. Close to WP:BLP1E, but just squeaks by IMHO. ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant international events can arise over relatively trivial causes, and this is one of them. DGG (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the point - what evidence is there that it's a significant international event, i.e. significant enough to overcome WP:NOTNEWS? Rd232 ^talk 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no requirement for sources to be in English on WP so the nominator's rationale is flawed and irrelevant. The event has caused a diplomatic row between the two countries, and is more than notable for inclusion as a stand alone article. WP:BLP1E is not a concern either, as per Elian Gonzalez affair. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the event caused a diplomatic incident, then perhaps it could be mentioned in Finland-Russia relations, but it is certainly not notable for a stand alone article. Unlike Elian Gonzalez affair which was widely reported in the world media, no one has heard of this event outside of Finland or Russia. --Martintg (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:BIAS. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here. The nomination is not because there are few English sources (although this is an indication of relative lack of notability). It's because of WP:NOTNEWS - this is essentially a news event and its significance has not been demonstrated. As a standalone article it belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 11:41, 11 July 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.