Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

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. A lot of the comments are brief, and while AfD is not a vote, the amount of detailed policy reasons to both keep and delete the article about cancel each other out. A discussion about renaming can occur outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This appears to be an entirely non-notable meta article that could be easily incorporated into the article about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. So I propose merging the text into that article and deleting this one, unless general notability can be established. Grnrchst (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Grnrchst (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Grnrchst (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Grnrchst (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this has substantial coverage as a notable topic, given that wikipedia's articles have been targeted for censorship and retaliation: (in addition to the sources currently on the page) [1] [2] [3] . Per these sources and the sources on the page, this meets WP:GNG. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then maybe what this article needs is expansion per the cited sources. Because currently the given text presents a rather vague and shallow report of the subject, essentially taking three whole sentences to say "this exists" in slightly different ways. -- Grnrchst (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor in Belarus was doxxed and arrested for writing about Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of coverage and interesting topic.....reminds me of Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic.Moxy- 23:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - there's been an arrest of an editor for writing about the topic, which I added to the article. This is information warfare. Maybe the article could evolve into general misinformation about the war. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Not opposed to a community reassessment once the dust has settled a bit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per the sources listed in the article and in this discussion, might just need a bit of expansion but it's a start. Bsoyka (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it stands right now, it's just a one-liner/paragrapher that could be merged to something else. But I suspect as things progress, this will grow too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, change to Wikipedia coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine because in 2014 Wikipedia editor Ihor Kostenko is on List of people killed during the Revolution of Dignity and was Wikipedian of the Year for that. Wikipedia's relationship with this contact goes back further. Also like Moxy says, this is like Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic. Wikipedia is again the world's single most requested, published, accessed, and consulted source on a major world event, and Wikipedia's coverage itself is the subject of journalism and research. The sources establish WP:GNG now and based on precedent we can reasonably expect them to keep coming. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I totally agree with this. Wikipedia coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has more longevity as an article. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is just WP:Navel-gazing. The Russian government has opted to censor more than just Wikipedia. There isn't more that can be written here -- one guy got arrested, and the Russian government wants to disallow access to ruwiki. We cover it in 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Censorship_and_propaganda and IMO a Censorship related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine may be warranted, within which we can discuss this incident, and things like the EU ban of RT etc. WP:N isn't really relevant because the guideline explicitly says even if something is covered in a few media sources, it could still be better covered as part of another article. We would not create Voice of America coverage of Russian invasion of Ukraine, and repeat for BBC News Russian, Voice of America, RFE/RL, Deutsche Welle, Meduza, Echo of Moscow and Dozhd, [...], and every other source that has been involved in censorship in these events. If this weren't Wikipedia we wouldn't even be discussing this. There are already way too many articles relating to this invasion. It's resulting in fragmented information, poor structure, and lack of appropriate oversight -- overall, this means very poor value for the reader. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think this is enough, instead just put it in chapter on the main article. If by any chance the Russian Wikipedia gets censored or blocked or anything along the circumstances of that, then I suggest this article may be evolved to the potential impact on the Russian Wikipedia itself if it somehow happens. Sam the speed fighter (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The topic of Wikipedia's coverage is no more than a passing reference in all but the Slate article, thus in my estimation this article does not pass 'Significant coverage' criteria of WP:GNG. While not all the prose is a write-off, the little that is useful, particularly the mention of arrested Wikipedian, should be merged into other relevant articles. As this article stands right now, it is little more than WP:SYNTH. On a more subjective note, the article feels a little self-congratulatory, but if solid sourcing becomes available in the future, it might make sense to recreate the article when the dust has settled. Melmann 19:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While Wikipedia's coverage of this event is an interesting topic, it doesn't seem to be notable enough for a whole article at the moment, especially when compared to the other articles about the Wikipedia coverage of a particular topic (Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and Wikipedia coverage of American politics). – InterestingTime (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potential notability hasn't been proven yet. The article is way too short for that. Super Ψ Dro 18:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Slate article is significant enough for a keep, but the threat of banning Wikipedia is even more significant. I don't agree with ProcrastinatingReader's likening of this article to a Voice of America coverage of Russian invasion of Ukraine article as the censorship threat is not the only subject of this article. CutePeach (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this topic has been covered by more notable and reliable sources, including the Financial Times, Haaretz,Deutsche Welle, and many others. It is completely ridiculous to say it isn't notable, the only thing I would suggest would be to move it to the title of Wikipedia and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the arguments of user:Dunutubble. 89.8.144.217 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide international coverage, satisfies WP:GNG. The current amount of prose summarising the notable information from the sources is weak, but that's only a problem of lack of editorial attention. For comparison, the first version of Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was quite stubby, and there was also an AfD there, which resulted in keep. Boud (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pageviews alone are not an indicator of notability, but some may consider it worth noting that the article received 1,266 requests within six days on the encyclopedia. Bsoyka (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to incubate and expand. Depending on what can be found and what future coverage arises, this may take days or weeks or months. There is no WP:DEADLINE, but past trends of sources reporting on Wikipedia coverage of major events yields a fairly strong likelihood of comparable coverage of this specific topic arising. BD2412 T 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's impossible for wikipedia editors to create an article about wikipedia coverage of things because every editor is too close to the topic to be neutral. CT55555 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this nonsensical argument, every article in the Category:Wikipedia should be deleted.... Aza24 (talk)

I cannot force you to be kind, but I will ask you to be fair: I did not advocate for what you say this leads to and I think you are at risk of escalating my point into a Straw man argument. I would say my point applies to the three articles that start "Wikipedia coverage of..." without expanding it to the extent you've suggested. I recognize I made a bold argument, I recognize my logic could be flawed, and if that is how you see it, I invite you to refute the key point of what I have made, instead of escalating it into a larger, different point and refuting that. CT55555 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word impossible is an absolute quantifier that, as stated, applies to all members of Category:Wikipedia. On the other hand nonsensical seems like a personal attack. We can disagree with arguments while respecting that they are stated in good faith. Now that we've had clarification: there is obviously a fundamentally difficult COI in having Wikipedians decide whether an article about Wikipedia is notable. A pattern on how to handle these cases may emerge from practice (such as this case), in which each case has different characteristics. An uninvolved ... Wikipedian will have to close this discussion sooner or later and help build up the pattern of which of these articles are acceptable and which aren't. Boud (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is simply not enough information available on the topic to make an article out of. The sources above all say nearly the same things, so this information is much better served in the articles on Wikipedia censorship, Wikipedia itself or something along these lines. Aza24 (talk)
Keep While the article does not have much contents at present, the topic "as is" is notable and has the potential to be grown into a full-blown article eventually. I see various directions how it could be expanded including discussions of (third-party) analyses how the Wikipedia communities in the various language entities reacted to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a huge self-organizing structure, about attempts to undermine our neutral coverage through vandalism and how we deal with this, about censorship and blocking attempts in the Russian and Belarussian Wikipedias (and related threats in real life), and about how (Russian) users utilize Wikipedia to get a clearer picture.

Since Wikipedia is an important part of the net culture and society, not only our contents but also our behaviour as a community is under the scrutiny of the outside world. Therefore, reputable, independent, diverse and reliable sources discussing this meta topic are already available for most of the themes mentioned above (it might be a bit too early for deep scientific analyses). More will show up as events develop. Hence I see WP:GNG to be passed.

For now, I would keep the article title as it is, but depending on how the article would develop, it could be renamed to a (then) more suitable title at a later stage.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable, important topic and the sources cited in this article demonstrate notability. It can be expanded. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Bluerasberry. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:09, 21 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.