Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Ovsyannikova

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.114.175.179 (talk) at 04:22, 15 March 2022 (→Marina Ovsyannikova: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Keep please - don't enable dictators to close down heroic journalists like Marina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeScot14 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Ovsyannikova

Please note that this is a conversation about how well this topic fits Wikipedia's guidelines. It is not an assessment of the bravery or morality of the action.

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

Marina Ovsyannikova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO1E at this point. I salute her, but there is no indication that this minor event will have lasting implications. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RT anchor resigned on air about 10 yrs ago, it's happened before. She barely has a mention. This is a small event. We need proof that she's eligible as a journalist or news reporter. Simply holding up a sign isn't enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned RT anchor has her own Wikipedia article, so this precedent actually supports keeping the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Wahl#RT_America Ramendik (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a small event, Why is there such a discussion here then? Jsvahn (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - it is astonishing that this is even being considered for deletion. I can only imagine a pro russian propoganda activist wants to pretend this selfless act of bravery and courage didnt occur. Question - what would wikipedia's feelings be today if Rosa Parks was deleted from history? 2A02:C7F:342B:2C00:1CE2:77CE:936E:F9B8 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We could recreate the article with neutral, third-party sources, of which Parks has many. This individual has none. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, the discussion about deleting this article would be much more substantiated in 2-3 weeks, maybe more, who knows. Now it's discussion between "the event might turn out to be insubstantial" vs "she might be an instigator of something big" and none of the sides has any real arguments. So the real question, what's with the rush? Somebody is afraid of her name having a wiki entry? At the time, she's a most public antiwar protester. Nobody is denying that the strength of Russian civil resistance might be one of key factors in the outcome of this war.
    Maybe redirecting her name to bigger article on Russian protests will be the most prudent action in the future - but for now, the rush in the act is a political statement in and of itself. As such, it goes against objectivity. 89.75.169.132 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should NOT be deleted. I do hope Wikipedia isn't listening to Putins censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:985:E7FF:1:9860:6F2B:144:5D5A
Not listening to censhorship when we talk about it here. More akin to pro-Ukraine propaganda, regardless, no trolling please. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would be better-served as a subsection in Russian propaganda or an article about the war itself Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. She will either be the first step of a complete turnaround in the Russian press, or she will go to jail for a long time. Either outcome is important for the history books. Mlewan (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should wait until something happens on that front before making this point. Deleting an article doesn't necessarily mean it has to never be remade. Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 20:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I think we should delete this article, but it's hardly certain she'll be either of those things. Also, going to prison for a long time is true for a lot of people we don't write about. And unfortunately, true for a number of people in Russia who oppose the regime. Julle (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If she has forfeited her life for doing this, then leave this as a eulogy to her very visible brave act? AnIguana (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't an obituary site. No, we can't allow that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @AnIguana: So one of the things that will happen here is that a lot of people who see the note on the article page will come to the discussion to argue on moral grounds, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Muboshgu, whom I don't necessarily agree with, didn't start this discussion because they want to disparage the courage or sacrifice involved, but because of their interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is like all other publications – there's an idea of what content is to be included or not. It's entirely possible to consider it out of scope here, and yet respect the act itself. A Wikipedia article isn't a measure of a good act. Julle (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • revolutions often happen in TV, for instance in 1989 the fact that communist controlled state TV flipped and started broadcasting facts about police violence towards students was an important factor, please do not delete 89.176.206.34 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good point, however I would rather see this article as part of a bigger article on Russian revolts against this war, not necessarily keeping the article. I feel that having the article separate from others would not mean as much and is still a violation of WP:BIO1E - Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ”event“, that WP:BIO1E refers to, in this case is not the big event of Russia's invasion of Ukraine 2022 (where this action may play a relatively small role, some might argue – though I'd disagree), but high profile public resistance in Russian media, which has not been a wide spread phenomenon yet at all: This lady thus plays a major role in some minor event. – Consequently, the lemma has to be kept until further developments. -- Xantares ⌘ 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just came to wikipedia looking for info on this person. Anyway, she will likely go on trial, receive a brutal punishment and, much like PussyRiot, may well be a continuing cause celebre for her bravery. Not deleting seems prudent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.109.54 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. The event seems highly relevant in this context and is clearly the first of its kind on Russian state TV during the Ukrainian war. There already are some quite relevant sources like this one. I don't think WP:BIO1E applies here. --Coco (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep People need to know that everyone in Russia does not support the Ukranine invasion. 96.35.8.95 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very clearly both notable and set to remain so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then Redirect I agree with nominator Muboshgu's rationale for deleting this article. But, WP:BIO1E states that creating a redirect is more appropriate for a person who plays a minor role in a major event. Since Ovsyannikova plays a small role in the Ukraine crisis, her article can be merged with an appropriate article and then deleted. Just because sources like The Guardian cover what she did doesn't mean that she deserves her own article, but rather, if other people become famous for anti-war sentiment towards Russia, the sources used to create the article can be used in the said hypothetical article. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ovsyannikova may play a ”small role“ in the Ukraine crisis, but that is not the event you should apply the terms of WP:BIO1E against; she presumably plays a big role in the public display of opposition to the Russian invasion.  χenoΛntares ⌘ 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WhiteCherepan, Matrek, Milowent, 90.201.109.54, others: I know that the situation with Ukraine and Russia is very significant and causing reason for concern about Ovsyannikova. But, we should not let these events influence what to keep and delete on Wikipedia. For instance, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I have been seeing some keep arguments suggesting that the person will become famous for her act. But, we must not forget to adhere to policies and guidelines. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LPS and MLP Fan, personally I'm less swayed by this particular event than my view that English Wikipedia does a better job of doing fair articles on the fly during these events than anything else on the internet. There's no question we will cover this event as well at 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. But right now the world is searching her name, so I think the article can be kept and reassessed in a week or few weeks when things calm down. We don't have a specific rule or policy, but I've seen this be a de facto outcome many times in the last 15 years.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trougnouf, Vrrtigo, 51.154.1.122, 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:8023:A242:95FE:C539, others: As I stated before, we need to evaluate whether this person is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. Google searches, number of sources, and personal opinions about the person are invalid arguments to make for keeping her article. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now: There's no way to stop the inevitable BLP1E AFD during these events under our rules and policies, I suppose. To the extent we are worried about exposing a living person to coverage, I hope this person lives to see wikipedia's coverage of her. Within a week we'll know a lot more about the case for notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this would not be notable in France, Canada or most other countries. However, it is notable given the current conditions in Russia. All dissidents are silenced, censored or 'rewarded' with prison terms. All independent media sources have been closed. Aside from some street protests, this is one of the very few visible protests in all of Russia, a country of more than 140 million people. It would not be notable in your country. But it is notable given the current realities of Russia. Context matters. A shop in an average shopping mall in an average country is not notable. But if a large country has one shop in the entire country, that shop becomes notable. MahaNakhon (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable tv anchor, her protest made her even more worthy to have her own page here. -Matrek (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is she a tv anchor at all? This is not currently indicated by the article. Julle (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She was a TV anchor for the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company. Renat 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, there will be books about her. --WhiteCherepan (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep! This is a very important event, right now she's the bravest person on the planet ! Such courage must be supported ! If Wiki does not realize the importance of this moment of truth, it thereby claims that free speech is not worth taking such a risk, that i'ts not even worth an entry. what would be next, deleting oberst stauffenberg ? 51.154.1.122 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a brave lady she is! I think she will not be forgotten for her bravery and truth - bless her! Please Wikipedia ... just be what you claim to be . the voice of the good in the world. 2A00:23C5:C187:1D00:3C0C:168B:B32C:DAB1 (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Russia's highly-controlled media industry is a model for autocratic regimes everywhere. It not only finds top people, but rewards them well. All of this makes for high retention, or what they might call loyalty. For an insider to rise up like this is highly remarkable. It could one of the signposts to a collapse of the war effort, or even of Russia's current regime. At least it tells us that key insiders are turning against the institutions that advanced this war. Frazierdp (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could merge somewhere. Surely enough actions within Russia against the war to have an article on that. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have 2022 anti-war protests in Russia Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that "Wikipedia is not news", but what we see is history in the making. Googling her name in Russian - Марина Овсянникова - gets lots of hits covering this incident, even the Russian state owned Tass has a short article [1].Knižnik (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tass article makes no direct mention of events in Ukraine, which probably enhances the argument for keeping it in at least one Wikipedia. Here it is via Google Translate:
    MOSCOW, March 14. /TASS/. A woman who broke into the studio of the Vremya program on Channel One is facing an administrative case and has been detained. This was reported to TASS by a source in law enforcement agencies. "The girl can be held liable, including under Article 20.3.3. of the Code of Administrative Offenses ("Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in order to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintain international peace and security")", the source said. According to him, the woman is currently detained. The source clarified that Marina Ovsyannikova works as an editor on Channel One, she is in the police department at the OMVD in the Ostankino district. According to the source, Ovsyannikova is a native of Odessa, she was born there in 1978. Earlier it was reported that Channel One began an internal check in connection with an incident with an outsider in the frame during a live broadcast. Videodragons (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – seems significant to me. Superp (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:WHYN, We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.. Also, there's an influx of WP:SLEEPER accounts and Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts. Most keep rationale is centered on specificities of Russian media, and not the subject herself—further articulating why this should be redirected or merged with another article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... really can't stress the influx of sleeper and single-purpose accounts enough. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep! i disagree. she set an example for millions to follow. her name should not be hidden as a footnote in an artikel about russian media. she stands out ! btw.: most delete rationale wants to merge (i.e.: hide) or brings up technicalities. that's how a lawyer would argue to prevent something. yeah...i really can't stress enough the influx of people who want to prevent the truth from beeing spread ! i wonder who they might be working for... 51.154.1.122 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat: Please don't denigrate people who disagree with you by calling them "sleeper and single-purpose accounts". The topic under discussion here, or generally on Wikipedia, is not other wikipedians. Silver hr (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver hr: how am I denigrating others by calling a spade a spade? Literally half of the users on this talk page are brand new accounts, or spontaneously came back after taking a multi-month hiatus. Just calling it like it is, how does this denigrate users? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat: Your accusations imply that some people participating in this conversation aren't equal participants. Everyone is an equal participant until proven otherwise. If you have concerns about some accounts being sockpuppets, raise an issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If your concern is not with sockpuppetry, but other forms of systematic manipulation of Wikipedia, I suppose the appropriate venue would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Silver hr (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the users are socks... you shouldn't assume such, and obviously WP:SLEEPERS and one-purpose accounts are NOT the same as socks. Please do not conflate those things. One might get the impression you are trying to debase my input. You assumed I was denigrating users. You are wrong. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/14/ukraine-war-russian-anti-war-protester-interrupts-state-tv-news-broadcast Callmesolis (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– I get 27000 hits when I search for her in Russian (with quotation marks, so only her). More references than many other journalists who are featured on Wikipedia. Also more than enough material for a whole article. MahaNakhon (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
386'000 hits in diff. languages, 22'24 GDP, 14.03.2022 51.154.1.122 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or give a chapter in a relevant article - it's very difficult to get the message across to Russians relying on their national TV only. They've been lied to for years and are predetermined to view current reality basically upside down. What this lady has done is nothing but heroism, and may well serve as a trigger in changing this current tragic status quo between Russian and Ukrainian societies. Peace everyone. 86.38.230.141 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    if adds any weight to the argument, I'm a former admin on a foreign wiki, but it's been a while so forgot login info. I've spent these several weeks trying to talk to Russians on social media, those who either don't know or deny Russia's invasion to Ukraine, I don't know how successfully since now they legally are prevented from voicing any opinion departing from Russian institutional stance. But generally it's like trying to talk with hundreds of hungry wolves. So in the context of this, it takes such a courage and will to do as this woman did, it's even difficult to find words to describe it. I believe her story will be significant. 86.38.230.141 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now / Wait. Let this article and topic few days to solidify. Yug (talk) 🐲 21:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Let's see where this is going. No opposition to community reassessment at a later date, once the dust has settled. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would we delete a part of history? --Trougnouf (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment, because we are not in the business of crystal-ball-gazing. I cannot recall an event like this ever happening before, so we are not in a position to predict whether her act will have lasting consequences that go down in history, or what her future will hold as a highly-visible opponent of war. If, in months or years to come, it becomes clear that she or her act are better recorded in another article, part of a bigger picture, we can do so. For the moment, it seems a pretty big act, a unique situation, likely to attract a lot of attention, so let's wait and see. Elemimele (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: while as of right now, I do not think that her article is relevant on its own, and it does violate WP:BIO1E, I do feel that her actions warrant at least a mention in the Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. If she did something else notable before or if she does something notable after this, then I would support creating an article just for her. 2604:3D09:E284:C800:3D7B:4698:306C:E94D (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep her actions have already turned her into a well-known figure. The incident of her protest will be an important part of the history of the conflict. It already is! If the coming weeks do not bring any additional information, It would probably be best to merge it into a large article. Hawks ⁠Talk/Edits⁠ 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a historic event. Digimag (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others Ecpiandy (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She is already history and has been compared to Tank Man of '89 student protest in china by major news media. HansClumsy (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not for those who heard it would Paul Revere be relevant? He was just a silversmith. This article should remain until the relevance has been judged by time. One year should pass before any talk of deletion should occur. Sparks appear insignificant unless the ignite something. Let’s wait and see. 2601:348:4100:2150:E98C:554F:B473:8EBC (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that there is a strong consensus already, and that the Articles for deletion tag is degrading ms Ovsyannikova just as a deletion-tag on the Tank Man would degrade him and his act and play into the hands of China fascist censorship. I suggest removing the tag immedeately. This does not mean that this discussion has to stop. Only the tag is Putin-friendly. HansClumsy (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - it's sad that in such sources like wikipedia, the article would be considered for censorship by kremlin propaganda trolls. Admins, seriously? The war erupted and then the aggressor wants to delete evidence of that and you allow it? Wikipedia article is not a reward, it is information note. I think Marina is not somehow relevant for reader outside of context of this protest, so the article should be about protest, because it's simply not enough to write about Marina herself 95.24.224.82 (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the article is notable. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! She made a heroic gesture. Heroes are worth of being in encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9082:A701:7155:AF55:74D8:A361 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • PerpetuityGrat is right – note the suspiciously high amount of WP:SLEEPER accounts and Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts commenting on article's deletion. This is likely to be coordinated, the question is why. MahaNakhon (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is exactly what's to be expected if we put a big box telling people that the thing they found so heroic and wanted to read more about is up for deletion, which reads as "we think this isn't important enough", with a link in bold to this discussion, telling them they can make their voice heard here. Julle (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously relevant, covered by media all over the world. TiagoLubiana (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename article to something like «Anti-war protest on Russian government TV» and make it not about person, but about incident. 95.24.224.82 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now It's been what, four hours since this happened? That's not enough time to make a choice to delete on 1E. If it is eventually deleted, the content should be merged into one of the other articles on domestic Russian protests due to the significant media coverage. Intralexical (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RIGHT NOW everybody wants to know who she is, and Wiki is saying - with a red warning tag - yeah, well, she is up for debate. "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." The tag doesnt explain to the reader why article might be deleted. Is she not trustworthy? Did it really happen? The tag should be removed NOW. Wiki has a problem when a minority (4 out of 32) can cast doubt on a person with a tag like this obviously created for a diffent context but playing into the hands of a dictator. HansClumsy (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC) HansClumsy (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HansClumsy: You could probably move for a WP:SNOWBALL to immediately close the discussion if you'd like to get rid of the tag. I'm not going to do it myself because I think going through the whole process and settling it definitively is important to protect the integrity of the process and prevent it from being abused in the long term, though. Intralexical (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly relevant and important to an ongoing current event. --Thoric (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is not encyclopedic material per WP:NOTNEWS but perhaps keep it for now since a lot of people feel strongly about the incident. Delete later or better merge to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now without prejudice to a merge. This is a classic case of an article created too soon that was then nominated for deletion too soon. It's far too early to know what the long-term significance of this will be, but it's clear that in the context of Russian protests against the war it is significant so there is definitely no case for deletion. If there is long-term significance to this single event and/or other events she becomes involved in then it should be a standalone article, if there isn't it should be merged to a suitable article (2022 anti-war protests in Russia perhaps). It will take several days at absolute minimum and quite likely much longer than that before which it is can be known. The correct course of action in these situations is to leave the status quo as is until things become clearer, and as the status quo here is a separate article that means keeping a separate article. There is no deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with these two. It's also very odd to me that there are so many new IPs editing this page all of a sudden. Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We've put a big box with a link in bold leading here from the page that's the topic of the day, telling them that the article about the woman they think did the good deed of the day is up for deletion, which reads as "we think this isn't important" to new folks. Hardly surprising they're coming over to say their piece. Julle (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant (global) media coverage. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepPlenty of coverage. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marina Ovsyannikova has become notable with a single act, and her protest should also be included in Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is no pressing reason to delete this article at this time. Depending on her fate and what other protests might be inspired by her courage, we will have a better perspective on whether the article deserves to be a stand alone or merged into a more comprehensive article.Politicon535 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While she did recently gain attention for one event, she was likely notable before that event. There's not a lot of Russian speakers on Wikipedia, but abundance of links in her Russian page suggests that she would have satisfied notability if those pages were in an English language press. Also, there's bound to be more coverage of this beyond the one event including her arraignment and (likely) incarceration. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Selective) merge to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The textbook case of WP:BLP1E and even probably WP:TOOSOON (since it is extremely difficult to judge of the WP:LASTING notability of a subject in mere hours. A minimal merge (with only the most essential details, in true encyclopedic summary fashion) would be a valid option, as this definitively has enough coverage to justify some form of mention, but it is clearly not the kind of coverage to justify a stand-alone biography (due to NOTNEWS and BLP1E concerns, as stated above). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (for now) We could go from 2 ways from this, keep the article and make a special group for state-sponsored journalists, news reporters, etc. -- whom have protested against the war through mediums provided by state-sponsored corporations (Like Channel One RU). Or make a separate article that could be titled something like "Russian state-sponsored workers who have protested against the 2022 Russo-Ukranian Invasion" and add Marina (and other periodists/journalists) in there. t. Kris Null (they/them) (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepShe is really a political prisoner now and should be recognized as such. This not “one event”. What happens to her will cast a long historical shadow.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marina_Ovsyannikova&oldid=1077221301"