Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 07:30, 3 February 2022

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. I don't see a consensus either for or against the retention of this article, both based on a headcount and considering the apparent change of scope during the AfD. Also, most participants on both sides of the issue are people who I remember as having been involved in nationalist disputes related to historic conflicts in Eastern Europe including issues related to the Baltic states. I do not believe a meaningful community consensus can emerge on that basis.  Sandstein  05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

United States resolution on the 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic

United States resolution on the 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article covers something thast simply is not notable. It suffers from quite a few issues, but first and foremost, there is next to no scholarly discourse on the actual subject, apart from the standard brief news reporting. The actual resolution may warrant at most a line in Occupation of the Baltic States, but as a stand alone article, within an encyclopaedic setting the notability just isn't there, demonstrated by the lack of sourcing to independent, reliable sources. Russavia 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Misplaced Pages is not here to repeat the text of every resolution of every legislature in the world. Unless there is substantial third party coverage of the resolution, it fails WP:NOTABILITY. TFD (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Unless per nominator unless coverage is found MadCow257 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just wanted to make the comment as well, that I placed the issue tags on the article, and also placed info on the talk page. It was after doing this, that I searched for sources which would give it encyclopaedic notability (rather than WP:NOTNEWS) and failed to find anything of substance that would have stopped me from putting this up at AfD. --Russavia 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I would put more stock in deletion requests if they were not initiated by editors with a history of appearing to be antagonistic to Baltic topics. I would troll WP to delete articles which are only dear to Russophiles, but I can't be that petty. (These are my perceptions only, I am sure the nomination was done in good faith, but as we know, appearances count.) I'll see what I can turn up in the press, this will be around for debate for a few days at least. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Apparently (it only took one Google search) there was widespread coverage of the U.S. resolution in the Latvian press (I'd have to reach out to other editors for the press in the other Baltic states), for example: "Kongress lūdz ASV prezidentu un valsts sekretāri aicināt Krievijas Federācijas valdību atzīt, ka padomju okupācija Latvijā, Igaunijā un Lietuvā saskaņā ar Molotova-Ribentropa paktu turpmāko 51 gadu bija nelikumīga,” teikts apstiprinātajā dokumentā.", that is (reverse translating), "According to the resolution passed, 'The Congress requests that the President of the U.S. Secretary of State invite the leadership of the Russian Federation to acknowledge that the Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and during the subsequent 51 years was illegal.'" Rather makes this look more like an attempt to delete content on Misplaced Pages which relates to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states and the Russian Federation continuing to maintain otherwise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Call to get out the Congressional vote: "Rezolucija ne tikai uzsver Latvijas panakumus Latvijas nacijas veidosana, tautsaimniecibas atjaunosana un cilveku tiesibu lauka, bet ari parada Krievijas meginajumus vilkt Latviju and parejas Baltijas valstis atpakal Krievijas ietekmes sfaira, meginot tas atskelt no rietumiem. Rezolucija teikts, ka Baltijas valstis ir pardzivojusas tragisku Padomju Savienibas okupaciju. Rezolucija tiek ari pieminetas Igaunija un Lietuva." This continues to be a critical issue in Russian-Baltic relations: "The resolution not only emphasizes Latvian accomplishments in the establishment of the Latvian nation, resurrection of civil life and civil rights, but also calls out Russia's attempts to pull Latvia and the other Baltic states back into the Russian sphere of influence, attempting to cut them off from the West. The resolution states that the Baltic states have survived tragic Soviet occupation. The resolution also mentions Estonia and Latvia." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Tellingly, the Russian press reported the story with the lead that the U.S. Congress is telling Russia to recognize occupation of the Baltic States, for example, here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note for closing admin: The article appears to have changed from an article on a U.S. resolution to an article on a national anniversary during the course of this AfD. --Philosopher  21:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, the article in question has be renamed and expanded, and the !votes above are related to the old article. The re-scoped article is about a series of events that occurred during 2008 that spanned geographical area per WP:GEOSCOPE receiving contiuous indepth coverage during the celebration per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH, hence is notable. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, WP:NOTNEWS, which is Misplaced Pages policy, says, "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " In this case I cannot see how a scattering of references in Pravda and Latvian newspapers qualifies the resolution as "newsworthy". I don't even know if any of those sources could even be considered reliable. TFD (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You comment, as this AfD, is now irrelevant since the article name has been changed and expanded in scope. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You have added "a scattering of references in Pravda and Latvian newspapers". How does this overcome WP:NOTNEWS? TFD (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the modified article? I've not added any references from Pravda, so I don't know what you are on about. You appear to be mis-applying WP:NOTNEWS which is related to current events as they are unfolding. This article is about a series of events that occurred during 2008 that spanned geographical area per WP:GEOSCOPE receiving contiuous indepth coverage during the celebration per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH. A bias against non-english language sources is not a valid criteria for deletion. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the article. It is not prejudice against non-English sources, just that if an event occurs in an English-speaking country and is not covered by the English-speaking news then it is not notable. I am sure that if an event occurred in Latvia but was ignored by Latvian newspapers then it probably would also be non-notable. TFD (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there you go, since these events were covered by Latvian newspapers by your own critera you should change your vote to keep. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a logical fallacy and you know it. (Igny (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

• Delete as an inaccurate description of a non-notable event. (Igny (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
• Keep. If 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade (or the 2008, or the 2009 ones) doesn't run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS (which I don't think it does), then neither does this. Article already has secondary sources in it, and a 90th anniversary is obviously notable if it is celebrated within a country, and covered in the country's (and neighbors') sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment WP:NOTNEWS states: "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Misplaced Pages may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Misplaced Pages:Notability (events)" -- if one peruses the article they will see that ALL articles are from around the time of the event, meaning that this is routine news reporting. How is the 90th anniversary any more notable than the actual independence of Latvia, which I don't believe we have an article on? Or the 80th anniversary, is that any more notable than the 90th? This anniversary, whilst great for Latvia, is simply not notable for an encyclopaedia. Such things are more suited to wikinews, and this is especially noted since the article has not been edited in any major way since the first edit. A small film showing in a small theatre in Moscow, which likely had an attendance of a few dozen, isn't really a notable event. All these localised, small non-notable events, lumped together don't make the overall subject notable. Hence why this was brought here in the first place (even allowing for the supposed change of focus of the article). --Russavia 07:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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.