Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protests regarding 2008 South Ossetia war
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protests regarding 2008 South Ossetia war[edit]
- Protests regarding 2008 South Ossetia war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think, this is nothing more than collection of news reports. The table only aggravates the situation. Fails WP:NOTNEWS Blacklake (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Blacklake (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. —Blacklake (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - this article has been up for two years, it is stable, it is very well referenced, it is an integral part of 2008 South Ossetia war articles series, and it is typical, Wikipedia has many articles of this kind.--Avala (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - fine, it's sourced. But it really is just a collection of news, and it's not even written in prose. I think it needs a complete rewrite, but as-is it doesn't work as an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic topic, but not as written. — Timneu22 · talk 13:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No lasting notability. This is acceptable for Wikinews, but not for Wikipedia. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The content appears to be an integral part of the 2008 South Ossetia war, as attested by its sources. The article was probably spun off the main article because the main article was getting too big.--PinkBull 03:17, 9 July 2010 (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.