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.
Firstly, WP is not a news wire, so this article does not belong. The entire existence of this article is so that an assertion that Russian troops entered the Roki Tunnel on 7 August not 8 August. The mere fact that the article was pulled off the site and a correction made (like how uncommon is this in worldwide media!) is not reason enough for the nuttery and speculation that this is somehow a notable article. Not to mention it is a copyright infringement, as the images clearly infringe on the copyright of Krasnaya Zvezda, as the uploader has placed this into the public domain, even though the website states "Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства". ("Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a link and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws.") This article is an example of everything that WP is NOT. RussaviaDialogueStalk me14:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment To understand why the editor has started this article, one needs to read Talk:Timeline_of_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war#August_7. Basically, some editors are using the date in the AfD'ed article, which was later retracted, as a source in the timeline article to put forward their contentious POV that Russia had entered South Ossetia before 8 August, although all evidence presented from all sides of the equation refutes this. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Correct translation『Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сервера без ссылки и упоминания имени автора запрещено и является нарушением российского и международного законодательства』- "Full or partial reproduction of server materials without a reference and mentioning the name of the author is forbidden and is an infringement of Russian and international laws." You have translated the word『ссылка』from Russian into "link" the correct translation is "reference". The wikipedia entry clearly identifies identifies the name of the author, and refers to the Krasnaya Zvezda as the original source of publication. If you think the link is critical, I will add the original link to the article. Would that satisfy your copyright concern?WH Coordinator (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake in regards to "reference", however, that only applies to the images which are in the WP article (meaning that they need to be properly licenced); it does not divert away from the WP article itself having zero notability and not being squarely against WP:NOTNEWS, and dare I say some original research to boot. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me06:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be notable enough as a subject of important controversy. The article was also covered in multiple 3rd party publications.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepKeep as I am persuaded of its notability. Also I find the text in Template:PD-RU-exempt interesting, suggesting that news reports are not copyrightable under Russian law - not sure if this applies here. Regardless, if the material is truly public domain, it belongs elsewhere (like Wikisource) and not in the form of images on Wikipedia. Reswobslc (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, because it only talks about official documents, news articles are not official documents. Laws, decrees, etc are official documents. I was unable to convince on the use of Kremlin.ru photos under that same argument, instead I had to obtain official written permission allowing usage before that was able to be done. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - given that this article is about a russian newspaper, and the screenshots are all in russian, wouldn't it make better sense for this assumedly controvertial article to be in the russian wikipedia? I don't really see how many English speakers would find this notable (or undesrstandable). More than likely, and reader who would be interested in this controversy will more than likely be literate in Russian. The article itself seems relevant/notable to me, just not in the english wiki. Chaldor (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, in Russian Wikipedia it would also be relevant. The subject of the article, however, concerns international issue - a War Between Russia and Georgia, that is currently a subject of a worldwide interest, especially in the US where it is being frequently mentioned in the Presidential Debates. Depending on who you ask, some people think that the article was a mere hickup on a part of the newspaper of the record, while others think that this is an admission by Russian government of starting the war. It is this controversy that motivated me to post this article. WH Coordinator (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my understanding that the Wikipedia notability policy is universal. There is no such thing as notability only for certain languages. Either the content is notable or it is not, and if it is notable, then it is so on the English Wikipedia despite it being about an article written in Russian. Reswobslc (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. The war is notable, one article about it is not, despite two paragraphs in the NYT. This issue can be covered adequately in one of the articles about the war. Sandstein 08:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Life Goes On" should be expanded. Its content is at the beginning and still in the centre of a current important controversy about presence of regular Russian troops in Georgia before a certain date in August 2008. It belongs to some unintentional sources which seem to point to another time line as one conflict partner asserts and should be added in this context too. Red Star's article and the circumstances leading to its notability and vanishing quasi post factum were and are not only topic in NYT but in different international newspapers and magazines too (as Germany's SPIEGEL, FAZ or Süddeutsche Zeitung) in the context of the Russian-Georgian War 2008. Elysander (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs to be noted again that this article was retracted by Krasnaya Zvezda, and a correction article published. This happens every day in the media world. Heaven forbid we should be editing articles of the various people who CNN and BBC have declared to have died, either thru their own mistakes and/or incorrect information; should we be editing the articles of those subjects and pushing the line that they are in fact dead, and of course, we should also be publishing those articles in their entireity as they were also picked up on by other media outlets. This is how the media world operates people. Articles and information gets published, is picked up on by other media outlets, and is then retracted. It happens how many times a day in the media world? --RussaviaDialogueStalk me14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An important part of media war during the Russian invasion. The controversy surrounding this article has been reported in various international sources.--KoberTalk17:00, 9 October 2008 (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.
