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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. Although there are certainly very many "keep" opinions in the vein of WP:ITSIMPORTANT that are questionable in terms of Wikipedia inclusion rules, what this discussion makes clear is that (a) the arguments for deletion are not widely supported by experienced Wikipedians, and (b) a consensus to outright delete the article will not come about here, given that there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merging the content to a topically related article. I therefore suggest that such alternatives should be discussed on the article talk page before renominating the article for deletion. Sandstein 11:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Marina Ovsyannikova

Marina Ovsyannikova (  | 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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment from the article creator. It is indeed difficult to see whether this is going to have lasting consequences, but I am sure today and tomorrow she will be on every single non-Russian media. Such things do not occur so often.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Given that we‘re dealing with real time events here and, in the event that this is confirmed to be true, exceptional bravery which will warrant a wikipedia entry, wouldn‘t it be worth to wait some time before deleting? 77.6.157.35 ( talk) 20:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Nothing will be deleted before a week has elapsed. Ymblanter ( talk) 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I support that. Act like this make history. After some time has elapsed it might make sense to include this information into a bigger article on anti war protests in Russia. 51.154.165.136 ( talk) 20:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Putin wants to delete this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.175.223 ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  This is an act of heroism and is a significant step in the evolution of Putin's attack on Ukraine and the west. On a personal level she warrants a page dedicated to her and it should be retained as a repository of information concerning her fate. On a global level this page should be retained as not only recognition of heroes fighting disinformation but as evidence of trolling and further propaganda. One need look no farther than the replies to my comment to find evidence of this. 4piEpsilonNaught ( talk) 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Fully agreed and people speaking out against war and for peace should never be censored! Why is this page even considered for deletion? While not every country sees free speech as a key value, and that should be respected, the internet is a place of free speech, in these times please keep this! She is a voice for peace! Jazzooka ( talk) 23:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Marina is worthy of notice because of her long-standing work in media. She is not 'notable for only one event'. The article contains links to other notable activities by her. It is irrelevant whether she is 'brave' or to what extent her opinion is provable fact or just her opinion. The article does not imply criticism or support of her or her actions, historic or recent. It is written factually and neutrally, merely informative, it tells me what she has done in media production both historically and recently. Her most recent actions may have been contrary to Russian law (not yet proven) but that is not among the criteria for page deletion. I have viewed the criteria for deletion. None of them apply so keep the page. Milo Lawrence ( talk) 10:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep If the Marina Ovsyannikova page is deleted, then other pages, such as Yulia Galyamina page would also have to be deleted as well for the same reason. Galyamina's page is over two years old, and her page is well established and non-controversial. Despite Russian State censors, Ovsyannikova carried out an action seen by millions of people (TV and Video) and she faces some very serious prison time for her actions. It is true that we don't know if Ovsyannikova page will be notable next week, but her actions may have had a profound effect and possibly be a turning point in this war. For now, this page should be a 'Strong Keep'. Dinkytown talk 05:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'd disagree with the deletion of Galyamina for the reasoning that Galyamina was repeatedly jailed, where as far as we know, this is the first offense on Ovsyannikova's part. I think you are right that we should keep the page for now, but I still would like to see where we stand by next week. I would also think that the reason Galyamina's page is non-controversial is because the subject is less-well-known than others: for example, the page has been up for two years and still has not received a rating on WP Biography. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete I highly doubt Ovsyannikova will be relevant to the English wikipedia in a week from now, although I applaud her efforts. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Putin troll. It is very relevant and will be, it is an act of courage. 86.127.145.123 ( talk) 20:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I find it very funny I was called a Putin troll. Be kind. Just because I support this article for deletion does not mean I support Russia. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  No personal attacks, especially nonsense like that. Base your comments on Wikipedia policy. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Strong keep. Obviously an immortal moment in the present Russia-Ukraine conflict. As for you Muboshgu, you're quite the smug and self-satisfied individual, aren't you. A little tempest in a teapot. Erable maple ( talk) 05:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Smart move to insult an administrator of the website. Also not the correct place to voice your opinion - you should do that below. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  What about /info/en/?search=George_Floyd

  He is not forgottn. Let this page live 142.114.175.179 ( talk) 04:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  How dare you even type, that this act will be irrelevant to the English wikipedie in a week from now. This is an oustanding act, that will be remembered. Nothing like this happened before. She will get minimum of 15 years of prison and torture for this just for you to call it irrelevant and get it deleted from the wikipedia site. 85.160.33.51 ( talk) 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I still stand by what I said. I think this will be relevant towards other language Wikipedias, but not the English one. Also, you saying 'a minimum of 15 years' is untrue, as the maximum sentencing for a crime like this is 15 years. Not to mention WP:NPA. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 02:10, 15 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. /info/en/?search=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

  STRONG KEEP: The reference to Rosa Parks also immediately came to mind. Small actions can make a big difference. 77.9.8.62 ( talk) 07:24, 15 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

  At the time I am writing this, there are references to the Guardian and the Washington Post, among others, and a dozen of sources of similar quality reported the incident. I can not check the Washington Post as it is behind a paywall, but the Guardian has a dedicated story on the front page.I do not think the complaint she has not been covered has merit; I think we should evaluate whether BLP1E (as nominated) applies. Ymblanter ( talk) 06:18, 15 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

  I agree. This event may have a lasting impact. Strong keep 74.101.99.54 ( talk) 08:32, 15 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 • ^{has spoken} 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 • ^{has spoken} 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

  Matrek, Renat: This is untrue, according to this source: https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/14068301. Cited in the Russian article about Ovsyannikova, this states she is a producer/editor for the channel. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Reunion what exactly is "untrue" and how your link supports it? Renat 10:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  The link supports it by stating that Ovsyannikova was an editor for the channel, not a TV anchor. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 15:31, 15 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

  WhiteCherepan, 51.154.1.122, 2A00:23C5:C187:1D00:3C0C:168B:B32C:DAB1: I don't think anybody here is contesting her bravery. I think people here are discussing whether the article deserves to be removed because of Wikipedia's rules: making an article just because someone does one notable act does not mean they deserve an article. The WP:BIO1E mentioned above has more on this rule. Most likely, even if the article does end up deleted after this week, it will be re-published with more information at a later time, when we know more information. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 04:58, 15 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

Your own definition totally shoots down your suggestion to delete. We require "significant coverage"? She is being covered on every major news outlet I've seen today, from Washington Post to The Guardian to Sky News, down to every minor news outlet as well. Some of them are providing pages of background and commentary. Her actions are getting extremely significant coverage. 220.245.146.177 ( talk) 05:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep There are 680 pages in the category for BBC Journalist and Newsreaders. She's an equivalent to many of them in terms of Russian TV and so notable for more than one event. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:8023:A242:95FE:C539 ( talk) 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I second that and want to emphasize that English Wikipedia is not just source for people in natively English speaking countries. Calling her non-relevant event without her role in the now-famous incident reveals a rather anglocentric mindset. keep   χenoΛntares ⌘ 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Agreed. See WP:BIAS and more recent research results at Geographical bias on Wikipedia. Boud ( talk) 01:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a significant break from Russia state media narrative, and her story needs to be recognized. Vrrtigo ( talk) 21:51, 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 per Xantares and MahaNakhon. Silver hr ( talk) 22:47, 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

• The event itself and the article in question could be a manipulation campaign by the Russian intelligence services. I left a note on the article's talk page. MahaNakhon ( talk) 22:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Do you mean I was manipulated by the KGB? Isn't this ridiculous? Ymblanter ( talk) 06:25, 15 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

  I think this is a decent solution, however I'd still argue for deletion, unless until/if more protests come out on television against the war, or something of the sort. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:04, 15 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

• STRONG KEEP - it is astonishing that this is even being considered for deletion; she might get torutured/kindapped/prisonned for life now; she should be kept on wiki for such a courage, to make sure world knows her brave behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.67.168 ( talk) 00:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep Deletion of this page would be too similar to the media silencing in Russia now. DIY~ ( talk) 00:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  STRONGLY KEEP - I agree with the commentor that it is astonishing that deletion is being considered for what is clearly a very important current event. 2.101.176.114 ( talk) 01:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. WP:BIO1E, in relevant part, states that "[i]f the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Certainly the subject's role is central; thus the relative weight - the event's significance - is key in the conclusion to be drawn in applying WP:BIO1E. Rather than characterizing the subject event as "minor" or even moderately significant, several things go to its being "highly significant." Such weighing is a judgment, so basis in facts can be determinative. The following are salient facts: (a) by all accounts, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is of world-changing importance; (b) Russian support remains high due to the control over the news messaging in a manner that distorts the truth and is thus vulnerable to leaks; (c) this is the first, and so far only known penetration of the Russian media with counter-official messaging on the war; (d) accordingly, it is major news worldwide of a type that naturally leads people to Wikipedia for authoritative background (to be developed); (e) it is comparable to whistleblower leaks of covert intelligence refuting official narratives about any number of historic and/or ongoing events. David B. Graubert ( talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - Famous individuals are mentioning her name, and it made her notable. -- Cheol ( talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Neither is there any indication that this is _not_ a major event - whether or not it has lasting implications. At least this event is shared worldwide within 12 hours after its occurence. 2A02:A449:FB99:1:F476:EAC3:8A2:F3D7 ( talk) 08:45, 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

  Word about this discussion is making the rounds on Reddit as well, and judging by the comments in this thread and this thread, there's probably a few angry people coming here who haven't contributed before. CplKlinger ( talk) 07:10, 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

  I disagree here, the Russian page was created on the 14th of March meaning that she hadn't warranted notability for any other reason besides, which fails WP:BIO1E. She's also a TV producer which is probably the reason for it, producers don't normally have wikipages. Perhaps this one will be an exception due to the strong pushback on pages such as this, but we'll see how it fares in a week or two. I think people will have moved on from this incident by then, most likely for worse reasons. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 04:51, 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. In particular, I strongly oppose to the narrow application of WP guidelines proposed here. These rules work fine most of the time, but not in all case and certainly not here. We're looking at history in the making, so the usual rules like TOOSOON, LASTING etc. simply fail. The rule of thumb should be "do people want to look something up"; as of this writing, the page has had 43k+ views within less than 24 hours. Merging into Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a valid option because the article is already long and can't possibly include the type of biographical information that people come to this article for.

  Another thing, and this is not a personal criticism of @RandomCanadian, but a general observation: We see users overtly or covertly sympathizing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine trying to have information about it removed, or at least made less easily available, by making formalistic arguments for a narrow interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines. E.g., clearly pro-Russian editors even managed to get Attack on Snake Island deleted on the German Wikipedia because it didn't meet the criteria for major military events. We shouldn't let Wikipedia be instrumentalized like that. As of this writing, it is still available in Russia (see Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_Russia), so with major social media having been blocked it remains one of the few sources of information on the war available to Russians. We be shouldn't be undermining this by deleting articles like this. -- Prügelprinz ( talk) 07:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Please be very careful before labeling well-established editors as "pro-Russian". I believe in this case this is plainly wrong. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:27, 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 Keep She 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerussell ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep 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
• Keep Wikipedia will look really stupid if it deletes something like this. Arrecife ( talk) 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note whoever eventually closes this should take a hard look at WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ILIKEIT, just in case they forgot about it (as those two would be accurate descriptions of the vast majority of the above comments). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Please keep - this is already a valuable part of history, and is widely covered by international media. Puefiko ( talk) 06:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Notable for her prepared, risky and rare act with impact. And this discussion about deletion is quite notable by itself! Havanafreestone ( talk) 06:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Widely notable, current, plenty of sources to back it up. The huge number of keep comments above also back this up. Wikipedia can be so petty at times trying to delete everything. XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 06:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Notable both as a television producer – see Geographical bias on Wikipedia (example of WP:BIAS), Category:Television producers by nationality – American television producers‎ (8 C, 1,809 P), British television producers‎ (6 C, 436 P), Russian television producers (nothing, i.e. 0 C, 0 P) – and for a highly notable event during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please remember that this is supposed to be an English-language encyclopedia about the world, not an encyclopedia about the English-speaking world. Are US/UK TV producers really 2245 or more times more notable in the world than Russian TV producers? The ratio in Category:Television personalities by nationality is bad too (American television personalities‎ (18 C, 746 P), British television personalities‎ (10 C, 89 P), Russian television personalities‎ (1 C, 55 P), when we take into account that the pages in the subcategories are not counted in these numbers; RU only has 1 category. Boud ( talk) 06:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep The event is absolutely notable (I myself got known about it from The Guardian), see no any reasons for deletion. (Unsigned comment left by User:Audriusa}
• Keep for now, revisit later Potential WP:NOTNEWS but nobody knows how history will play out. Also, too many editors here are sharing their personal views (obviously all in #solidarity with the Ukraine); true Putin defenders are rare these days, but the #Ukraine sentiments are starting to sound like a cult. Go to Ukraine and pick up a rifle rather than corrupting Wikipedia discussions with shallow slacktivist platitudes. As strong as your sentiments may be for the cause, this is how the encyclopedia slides in quality. Please stay on topic and be objective. My opinion is that there is a use for this article in the short term, but I am unsure about its utility long-term. Perhaps revisit this deletion in 1-3 months. 2600:1012:B01C:839C:60BB:507A:2D52:FDC6 ( talk) 07:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Follow up comment, same IP: There is far more potential for harm with insufficient coverage of a topic than with over-coverage. Having a Wikipedia article is not like having a blue check on Twitter…there is no implicit political “endorsement” with having an article like there is with a Twitter blue check. It’s all about notability. Clearly at the moment it’s notable enough. Every article had to start somewhere. Sometimes articles become non-notable and are deleted; such is life. She may be the next “Tank Person”, or she could show up on TV next week, reformed a la Jack Ma, calling for Zelenskyy to kill himself. Too many people here playing WP:CRYSTAL ball. 2600:1012:B013:2723:E5B8:575:8EA4:669C ( talk) 08:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep as for now, it's evident, that her person has a significant coverage, that is enough for a separate article-- Noel baran ( talk) 07:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Keep The act can't be erase to satisfy Putin's followers. That kind of act is confirmed, has a great symbolic value and is already historical. AB30200 ( talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep She will be remembered for her action yesterday, whatever happens in future. Pam D 08:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak procedural keep (for now): Given that between people's strong views on the ongoing war, and adversarial comments aimed at participants in this discussion, there's basically no way we're going to get a sensible discussion of whether the subject of this article is notable. We should close the AfD as either keep or no consensus, wait about a month or two and then have a proper discussion with greater perspective and less fervent passion. WP:THEREISNORUSH—Wikipedia can and often should just go "okay, let's hold off for a bit and see what happens before we make these decisions". — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, her actions are being widely reported in both Russian and foreign press. If a page is made specifically for her action of holding up the sign (thus solving OP's complaint about WP:BIO1E), then I might support having her page redirect there instead. -- Aabicus ( talk) 08:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, highly likely to go down in history as a key moment of the anti-war movement in Russia. Christiaan ( talk) 09:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, high coverage in media. LaMèreVeille ( talk) 09:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment: neither for or against for the time being. The way I see it, the article may be coloured by recentism. I would wait a few days until the media dust settles down on this thing before revisiting whether or not it should be deleted or at least relegated to a subsection in the wider 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. Yekshemesh ( talk) 09:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment Allegedly УК 207.3, till 15 years. So please wait few days before you cancel her. Xx236 ( talk) 09:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• The subject may or may not have been notable when this article was started (that depends on whether any secondary sources were available as well as the many primary news reports) but I'm sure she will be notable by the time the seven-day discussion period is up. Of course people will be writing background secondary sources about her, and have probably already started. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete She's only notable for one thing. The policy is to write about the event not the person. Dougal18 ( talk) 10:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, at least for now: The event (protest on channel one russia) seems certainly notable (or will turn out to be in the coming days). There could be an argument whether we should have an article about the event than rather than about her, but imho that's ultimately just a policy technicality. Imho the event and she herself are likely to become an iconic symbol similar to the Tank Man. However the article should restrict itself to what is reported in reliable media (even if it is rather limited for now) and stay away from relying on social media for content and sources.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can not say with certainty what the lasting impact or media coverage will be. But a rush to delete simply because something happened recently is in itself engaging in crystal-balling. The global coverage of this significant instance of dissent in Russia points to a potentially larger impact. Ovsyannikova also appears to meet the basic requirements for notability per WP:GNG as having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder ( talk) 10:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Quite obviously! There are many important figures from both sides during this conflict. We should not allow Putin's trolls to erase them from history. Durindaljb ( talk) 11:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.105.86 ( talk) 08:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Please don't delete the page of this very brave woman that dares to stand up for international justice and peace and has been arrested for telling the truth about the (Russian) regime she used to work for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.14.200 ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 15 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.