Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alley of Angels

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 delete. Keep voters need to review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of Angels

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No apparent notability. The sources from the article are almost all unreliable - mostly Russian government media or blogs - and I didn't find any others when I tried searching for more. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources as reflected in the sourcing for the article. Also it tends to only be a passing mention in RS. Mellk (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources as reflected in the sourcing for the article?

Removed due to insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources, as reflected in the source of the article? so probably the problem is that "independent" sources have been saying for 8 years that in Donetsk the Russians are killing themselves, blowing themselves up, that Donetsk is not being shelled with mines, shells, rockets of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but as independent media say, in Donetsk there are just a lot of air conditioners and they keep blowing up Gaiver173 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could be simple, dear russian editor.

As this is political theme, it would be better to allow other edits to state opposing views and full data about the memorial. AND not to delete/Undo them.

Let others add other sources.

If they have to fight with you (surely the-one-with-the-only-right-opinion) they would react by deletion nomination.

Stete EXACT number of child victims, if possible with attribution to both sides of the conflict.

And allow the detailed photo of the nameplate with victims.

You know:

this theme is heavily discussed and often edited mainly because of russian propaganda-repaters who use it as "true" - that Ukraine killed much more UA-Russians in this war - compared to Russian army+separatists. Which is not true.

BUT this memorial shows 49 child victims for 8 years of mostly minor fights.

Current 8 months of Russian heavy invasion show 500 child victims (only those confirmed by UN).

It is that simple. Reality, compare both sides/conflict timeframes, not the only "my-opinion-cruel truth".

Surely you can state your own numbers with sources if you know there are more victims, expecially in areas of Donbas Russian military administration, which denied access to UN/OSCE prosecutors.

I think you are intelligent man, and "some child victims", names like "Voloďa, 18 years old" are not enough information to appear as reliable source.

You know, neutrality. Both views on the topic. Palo.hagara (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is obviously about a monument that is real and does exist. Moreover it is relevant enough to keep because it has attracted much attention in the media. It does depict the names of (58?) children dead in the civil war and serves as a memorial to many others. Note there are plenty of examples in Wikipedia of articles of monuments without a single reference -- I am sure we are not thinking of deleting all those which brings the question whether the deletion of this article is a political/cancel culture move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reds1lv (talk • contribs) 16:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles should be improved or deleted on their own merits, according to the guidelines, and have no bearing on this one. —Michael Z. 16:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is deleted based on having no references it creates a serious precedent as many other articles are in the same situation. Reds1lv (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The precedent led to the development of a whole guideline about this at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. —Michael Z. 16:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject has had practically no attention in media or other reliable sources, and is only mentioned in passing by the single cited BBC (Russian-language) article. —Michael Z. 16:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. It has been even mentioned in the United Nations (source Permanent Mission of Russia Federation in UN https://russiaun.ru/en/news/170222vers). Reds1lv (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian deputy foreign minister is a primary source, and only mentions the subject in passing. If this is the best you can come up with, it supports the rationale for deletion. —Michael Z. 16:56, 31 October 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.