Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeans Revolution

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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeans Revolution, Denim Revolution

Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make the news. This term is a very non-notable neologism, and the contents of the article only a matter of speculation among Wikipedia users about an ongoing demonstration in Minsk following the March 19 Belarusian presidential election. As far as I can tell, the term traces its way back to an article by Independent reporter Andrew Osborn. [1] The speculation of a single reporter, and perhaps a handful of other commentators, however, does not make an encyclopedia topic. Based on a search for the term on Yahoo News, not a single media outlet is even mentioning the "Jeans Revolution," let alone referring to the event itself as the "Jeans Revolution." [2] 172 | Talk 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, FYI, this article was previously deleted under the title "Denim Revolution." [3] 172 | Talk 14:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I nominated it for deletion myself in 2005, however in 2006 new events made this term sufficiently prominent. The article would be useful today, to counter various speculations in the west about the term. mikka (t) 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as repost of previously deleted material. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am afraid Speedy delete is inappropriate because the article totally, 300% rewritten. mikka (t)
      • Change vote to keep and expand, this has become a sufficiently well-used term per news website links below. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeep I am sorry to comment that this time normally very knwoledgeable user:172 is mistaken. The term is in use in Russian language since October 2005. It is not a "single reporter". I added russian language names. Unfortunately I have no time to do proper research and write a decent text. However please let me note that the very fact that Belarus President Lukashenko himself used the term (BEFORE the elections and recent demonstrations) makes it notable. See my comments in Talk:Belarusian presidential election, 2006#Colour Revolution. mikka (t) 17:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Right now I added a reference to the original event that gave rise to the term (and Rusian/belarusian terms, for google search). I am sorry I didn't do it earlier. I did not expect that the article will be contested. mikka (t) 17:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Belarus election riots gets many thousands of ghits, this gets about 500. It looks very much as if either the term has not yet made it into the English language media, or it's a localised neologism. No dispute that the riots took place, but we have not yet seen much in the way of credible evidence that this is what they are generally called. Articles which are "useful to counter speculation" almost invariably violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT (a soapbox). If Mikka can show credible evidence that this is the most widely used term for these events, I will change my vote. Just zis Guy you know? 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You are not reading carefully. The term is not confined to "these events", if you mean the post-election rallies. In fact, this part of the article must be severely trimmed (done). Also you are forgetting that English language does not rule the whole world. this term is notable locally in Belarus; even Belarus President uses it in his speeches bashing the opposition. Wikipedia is not only for American porn stars, you know. As for English language media, they prefer the term "denim revolution", which is related with this idiotic fixation on "color revolutions" and loses all associations with the word jeans in Russian/Belarusian culture. mikka (t) 18:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. mikka knows what he is talking about. So does ABC News, The Times, Amnesty International, The Economist, etc. -- JJay 21:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiNews. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:172 wrote: The speculation of a single reporter, and perhaps a handful of other commentators, however, does not make an encyclopedia topic. Based on a search for the term on Yahoo News, not a single media outlet is even mentioning the "Jeans Revolution," let alone referring to the event itself as the "Jeans Revolution." The term is being widely used in the Polish traditional and online press. Here are some links to Polish news pages using the dzinsowa rewolucja, which means jeans revolution about the preparations leading up to the present protests and the protests themselves. Since Belarusian, Russian and Polish press are all using the term, the usage or lack of usage in the English-language media is not a problem for the English-language encyclopedia - there are plenty of things not widely reported in English-language media, but nevertheless factual and verifiable (e.g. by contact with others) to English-only-speaking people. Boud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Jeans Revolution, whatever it may turn into, is distinct from the presidential election. If there is too much overlapping material, then the parts more related to the election itself should go to the election page, and the parts more related to an ongoing process - about self-organising political processes self-identified under the name Jeans Revolution - on the J.R. page. Boud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given the media coverage, I'm frankly shocked there's this much debate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Mikka's points are well taken. I can't read Polish, so I have not been able to follow coverage of the protest in Poland. Still, this is the English language Wikipedia. It concerns me that English-language media outlets are still not using the term. [4] I still think the contents should be merged with Belarusian presidential election, 2006 rather than be contained in the self-standing entry on a neologism. 172 | Talk 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • English Wikipedia does not mean English-centric Wikipedia. If something outside the sphere of the english-speaking world is notable, it should always be included. (It can be verified by people who know the language in which it's usually written about.) But I agree with you somewhat: If it is indeed as widely reported as claimed, it should probably be merged into Belarusian presidential election, 2006. Grandmasterka 07:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have orange revolution, rose revolutions, banana revolutions - why not a jeans revolution? The term "revolution" is pretty cheap nowadays. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Dont merge, dont delete! The term has been in use well before the elections, and has been used by Zubr and other opposition groups to describe their aims. I know Amnesty International and several other HUman Rights groups use the term, I'll see if I can dig up some good references. But please, dont delete, and dont merge with a semi-appropriate article. It's distinct enough. Besides, who knows, if might succeed and we'd be sorry to have deleted it! :-) Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a forum for human rights groups and other advocacy groups, even if the cause is a good one. No matter how much some Wikipedia users want to promote a "Jeans Revolution," the term is still a neologism. A good standard for determining whether a term is a neologism or a real movement recognized by the zeitgeist of the English-speaking world is checking to see whether or not the New York Times has mentioned the term. So far, the Times, along with just about all other major media outlets in the English-speaking world, has not used the term. [5] Let's please resist the temptation to make the news. 172 | Talk 08:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Haha! Read WP:BIAS. The English-speaking world is not the benchmark for what should be included in a Wikipedia! :-) I think we agree on most points, but please, dont pretend that people citing HR groups are POV pushers for that agenda. Notable HR groups as Amnesty International or HRW are also simply sources for notability of such a term, just like you cite the Times. For arguments sake, if the term is widely used in German, Polish, Belarusian and Russian media, but not in English media, would it be notable enough? My answer would be hell yes. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 09:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • When it comes to naming, the English-speaking world is indeed the benchmark for naming of articles on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Naming conventions lays out a set of guidelines under which "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Thus, I would still prefer to redirect the article to a page like 2006 Belarusian post-election protest while the term "Jeans Revolution" is establishing itself in the English-language media. Regarding your point on human rights groups, I think that overall news agencies striving for objectivity are better guides for naming than activist groups, although material from human rights groups certainly ought to be cited. 172 | Talk 13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Your mixing up two questions. Question one is whether this subject should have its own article. My answer would be yes. Question two is what this article should be called. Jeans revolution seems uncommon as of yet in English media (though not elsewhere). We could rename it to say, Jeans Campaign (as used in this Commission hearing). Still, the term may be much more neutral, but is used even less in both English and non-English sources, so I'm not sure if its a good idea. Still, just because the name may not be notable, does not mean the topic is not notable. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 07:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Mikka and JJay the subject is very notable. If you search for "джинсовая революция" (best not in google but in a Russian language search engine, e.g. yandex.ru) you'll also find a lot. As pointed out by Boud there are a lot of articles in Polish, also. Ben T/C 08:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Another comment As Mikka points out, since the Belarusian, Russian and Polish press all using the term to a certain extent, I am downgrading my opposition to this article. Nevertheless, I still hope that this AfD nomination serves to provide a caution to Wikipedia editors that the subject is a neologism, and clearly not at this stage a topic that, say, a historian can classify as a real "revolution." 172 | Talk 08:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That these events occurred is not in dispute. What is lacking is verifiable evidence from reliable sources that this is the name by which they are usually called. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As any historian will tell you, the naming of events is central to the interpretation of the events being named. And naming is often very political. Americans, for example, are very familiar with the dispute over the naming of the American Civil War (aka the "War of Northern Agression" or the "War Between the States"). Regarding the topic of this article, while no one can deny that there is currently a demonstration in Minsk against the outcome of the election, the idea of a "Jeans Revolution" may be a mere slogan, and not a real "revolution." Currently there are only around 700 demonstrators in Minsk. The protest has been dwindling since Sunday. Since then, each evening has seen a progressively smaller gathering -- 5,000 on Monday, 3,000 to 4,000 on Tuesday. The hardcore group spending the whole night outside however rose from 300 to 1,000 on Tuesday. [6] So Lukashenko might be able to ride this protest out. (Personally, I hope not. But I'd bet on that.) At any rate, there is certainly room for disagreement on the question of whether or not the events taking place in Belarus are a "revolution." 172 | Talk 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What is wrong with Minsk events covarage in Wikipedia? --EugeneZelenko 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP It is completely factual, it displays a NPOV, and just because it involves a current event, it does not mean it's "making the news" - you could say that about any article on Wikipedia that involves a current event. UKWiki 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm tempering my opposition to the article. Nevertheless, there are still some real concerns here. Reporting a current event is not the problem per se. Naming and framing the scene of a current event are huge issues in interpretation, which are of concern to an encyclopedia striving to be written from a "neutral point of view." 172 | Talk 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • 172, you and me are on the same wave here. Let me repeat that it was me who nominated the previous version of this article for deletion, because it was really preposterious in 2005: it was not at all sure that this neologism would survive. Please pay attention: the term is not about a single "current event": the word "revolution" is kind of misleading here. Initially this guy with denim shirt in the air suggested the term "jeans resistance", which would have been more correct. But the "peer pressure" (to say it politely) replaced it by "revolution", which is definitely way above the heads of belarussian opposition. Still, after the recent events the term generated enough buzz to warrant an article. mikka (t) 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I understand your point. You've helped to clarify the issue. By keeping the subject of the article focused on the term, as opposed to the "current event," you've gotten the subject out of problem territory. Thanks for making this clarification. 172 | Talk 18:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and suggest this be closed per WP:SNOW. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:SNOW is thankfully not a policy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm unfamiliar with that "clause." I guess someone could argue that it is a corollary of "ignore all rules" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy," which are established policies. At any rate, I'll let other editors hash out that debate. Nightstallion is correct that the nomination doesn't have "a snowball's chance." Nevertheless, in this case, the discussion stemming from the AfD discussion here is helpful and relevant. While I've started to agree with Mikka's point that the term has "generated enough buzz to warrant an article," the boundaries of the subject in an article on a neologism are often very murky. For now the AfD has been serving to help us clarify them. 172 | Talk 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. bogdan 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --DDima (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First step, keep Denim Revolution only as an article about the global fashion revolution about the rise of the denims and jeans wearing culture in the world, which BTW, is the more notable and encyclopedic "revolution". Second step, move this article to Cornflower Revolution, and continue the debate there to avoid confusing readers. In local poetry, the Cornflower is the national symbol of that country alluded to by the protesters, not denims. Please be cautious on relying on political commentators alone, for obvious reasons. Finally, there is no revolution unless the regime is actually toppled, which has not occured. (whether you are expecting it or not) I agree 100% that Wikipedia does not make the news, it only writes verifiably the notable events that reporters write about. I believe these two steps would be an acceptable consensus for everybody. :) --Noypi380 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd support that. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Jeans revolution" might not be popular in the English-language press, but "denim revolution" certainly has been picked up within the last week. Look it up. Korny O'Near 12:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a casual reader of news outside Wikipedia, I have heard this term used several times in print. It came into use well before this election week. I'm amazed we're even talking about this. Even assuming arguendo, which I do not, the standard for entries ain't that high. The only real question is should we should call it Denim Revolution? Huangdi 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mariah-Yulia 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This denim movement is definitely present, and it is not isolated to Belarus.

  • Keep Yes, this is what the revolution in Belarus is being called (though it was Cornflower before the elections). With the mounting protests in belarus taking place now, I have no doubt that this revolution attempt will go on for a little while. Plus, this is also notable, since this could be one of the first failed attempts of a color revolution after what happened in Georgia, Ukraine, Krygzistan. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per above. Jareand 22:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it is definitely a real term. Charter 97 uses the jeans / denim colour on their website. Valentinian (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand content; merge or rename, if needed If the title is inappropriate or incorrect, the article's contents should not be deleted, but merely renamed (to, for example "2006 Protests in Belarus" or similar) or merged into an extant article. The contents of this article, while contentious (as is the on-going event), and in need of strong editing, fact-checking and NPOV-watching, deserve an entry. Thank you. --NightMonkey 02:01, 26 March 2006 (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.