Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharkiv People's Republic

Kharkiv People's Republic

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This was not an "unilaterally declared state" but a group of people who in a lobby declared to have formed a state while never being in control of anything and they were all forcefully removed a few hours after their proclamation.... This "republic" has not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same can be said for the Donetsk People's Republic. But that page is still standing. Arguably even the United States was created by a few people sitting in a room. Dapiks (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The United States was a rebel movement and had de facto control, military, etc. This group has nothing, it's just protesters. You can't just declare things and expect it to mean something--Львівське (говорити) 15:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US at the time it was declared had a few 'activists' organized in Committee of correspondence who did not have control over the territory of what later became the US.Dapiks (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this notion is that other countries recognized America as being independent, also a big hole is that Wikipedia was not around back then, we are talking about here and now and about this article not about the United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much different from, e.g., "Belarusian People's Republic". --78.84.37.136 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian People's Republic lasted about a year... This Kharkiv People's Republic did not even get started... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and it exercised a clear control over the claimed territory, up until the Volga River! (sarcasm) --2002:4E54:2588:0:0:0:4E54:2588 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huge delete - a bunch of activists making a fake proclamation from the lobby of a building they were booted from does not deserve an article as a legitimate country. Merge content into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine --Львівське (говорити) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like it's just a few activists though [1] Dapiks (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the appeal to merge content into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if I knew that this would stir up feelings among the Ukrainian contributors, I probably wouldn't have created the article. I understand the emotions and concerns that may be flying around right now - and if you think that taking off a page on wikipedia may help sway public opinion in one way or another, I'll agree to delete the page for now. BUT, to me the Lugansk or Kharkiv republics are just as legitimate or illegitimate as the Donetsk People's Republic which was voted to be kept. Either all three should be deleted and merged into the pro-Russian protests or all three should stay. At least when this all boils over, these pages should be allowed to stay. Dapiks (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Donetsk article was not voted as keep, it's still being discussed. The talk page shows unanimous support to rename it or merge it --Львівське (говорити) 16:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit fed up that editors who never met me are telling me what kind of person I am and what I am feeling right now... My reason for putting this page up for deletion is that this "republic" has not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are fed up that people are trying to connect with you on a human level? Hmm, nice way of fighting for the cause, which given your activity here it is obvious you do.Dapiks (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Wikipedia "sways public opinion in one way or another"; you decided for yourself that I think that.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - nothing differentiates this article from Donetsk People's Republic which is still up. Dapiks (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. I don't think this subject has received the coverage to warrant its own article. Orser67 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure nonsense, this state never existed and no control was ever formed. 60 or so people could walk into any government building and declare that they have just formed the new state of Flowersandrosesland but without any actual control it is baseless and just as in this case would most likely get you arrested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Republic has been proclaimed. Ukrainian junta managed to overtake the building, which differs it from the much more vital Donetsk republic, but the declaration has been made [2] Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from yesterday, since then the building was stormed and every single person there arrested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I said. Ukrainian junta managed to overtake the building - that refers to the Maidan Kiev-loyal stormtroopers that arrested the revolutionaries. This is what they can't do in Donetsk, but we have to wait and see how the civil war develops. The declaration still stands, as expressing the will of the people, loyal to the still legal president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, whose illegal disposal lead directly to the ongoing dissolution of Ukraine. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tone down the anti-Ukraine rhetoric? There are always two sides to a story (WP:NPOV). Anyways without control over anything an article about a state that does not exist physically is nothing more than wishful thinking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is not a republic proclaimed by anyone with authority or anyone in de facto control, just a small group of hoodlums. If a 20 drunkards in Hull proclaim People's Republic of Yorkshire tomorrow, should we make an article on that as well? All these weird "republic" articles being created each day can and should be dealt with under the existing articles on the crisis in Ukraine.Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would Putin risk World War III to save People's Republic of Yorkshire? Reliable Western sources are claiming that Putin is at this very moment planning to "invade" Ukraine and bring "peacekeeping" forces in to prop up these republics. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Just as with Donetsk People's Republic, this is WP:UNDUE to the extreme. A few activists making random proclamations that they can't carry out doesn't warrant an article, and can be covered in the existing 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine article. I also recommend salting this title, to avoid the random creation of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 22:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I support a "speedy delete" but amalgamating all these articles on separatist republics into one article dealing with the unilateral declarations of independence in the three regions could be a way to deal with the issue. Dapiks (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, delete, delete: Every activist-occupied building in Eastern Ukraine does not constitute a republic. No More 18 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you voting 3 times? :) Dapiks (talk)

Merge or delete Clearly this "republic" is very similar to the so-called Donetsk People's Republic, which both had no control of anything besides a building, and it is very likely that Ukraine will stay the way it is now (without Crimea), and not splinter into any other countries. Mainland Ukraine favors keeping the union. I suggest that this article and the Donetsk "republic" be merged into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. Viller the Great (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is ridiculous to start articles just because an angry mob declared a 'republic' from the window of the local executive power building. Besides, the Ukrainian government has restored control over the building. Parishan (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There were alot of republics in the Russian Revolution and Civil War that were small, like these modern Peoples Republic of Kharkiv and Peoples Republic of Odonetsk, with limited or no recognition, and/or shortly lived, yet they have Wikipedia articles. That sets a precedence. Bolegash (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia does not decide what to keep or delete based on precedent, as you will see in this essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secondly, even if we did decide based on precedent, this would not apply. No territory is controlled. A few random guys declaring a republic does not make the subject notable. It has not widely been reported in reliable sources and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we don't whether it will ever have significance or not. RGloucester — ☎ 14:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. An alike Sealand experiment maybe but this People's Republic doesn't control outside of the occupied building. --Taichi (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A better merge target would be Donetsk People's Republic. As for Sealand, the the Kyiv government militarily occupies the central administrative building, but it seems the city itself is is in the hands of separatists (...or Yanukovych loyalists or what ever you want to call them). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Kharkov People's Republic. All the arguments seem to be based on the claim, that "occupying a building does not constitute a republic." Very true, but the occupation is not the reason that this entity exists. It is because Ukraine has become a failed state that cannot control its territories, neither in the east nor west. If you want to base your !vote on the claim that the republic does not exist, then you better show evidence that the Kyiv government actually controls Kharkiv. Who do the local police obey? Separatist or Kyiv? The administration building itself has been occupied by some troops from Vinnitsa (some say "Blackwater"), but their movements and influence in the city seem to be very limited. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – The topic may not be notable as an unrecognized state but it is notable as a rebellion. (I have now included the article in Category:Rebellions in Ukraine.) Even if the rebellion came to nothing and everyone involved was locked up for life, we should still have an article on the Kharkiv 70 or whatever these political prisoners were called. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is very early stuff, only the Donetsk People's Republic is the significant event. The separatists still dominate the buildings of the Donetsk oblast in Donetsk. Doncsecz^talk 10:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any material on this incident can be covered in an article on Russian nationalist terrorism in Ukraine or something. Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep article until the situation is proven false (or not). The Principality of Sealand was formed illegally, is located in a smaller area (a sea platform), and is "inhabited" by less than 50 persons. Sealand is unrecognized by any countries in the world. Yet there is an article in wikipedia. Do you want to delete it as well? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sealand is a Micronation this proclaimed so called republic is not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from the deletion discussion for another one of these so-called republics) - Firstly, lets start with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't matter what else exists. Secondly, your comparison is moot. The difference with regard to Sealand, and any other small little republics that may have article for whatever reason, is that, for those, we have historical distance. For those, there has been coverage in reliable third party scholarly sources, that establish that events were notable in the context of history. We do not have that distance here, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we have no right to 'determine' the future before it has happened. As it stands now, an independent article for this supposed entity is WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per No More 18. Northern Antarctica (T • ₵) 14:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is this the birth of a real republic or a joke in the context of Ucranian turmoil? Who cares. That is something that has to be debated as a matter of content. What matters is that it is covered by multiple sources, and as such it is notable, apparently. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS, since the building was retaken there has been no new news media about this: [ https://www.google.com/#q=Kharkiv+People's+Republic&tbm=nws]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article is a joke right? If there is anything that needs to be said, it can be said in the relevant main article on Russian protests in Ukraine. Not worthy of its own article, especially since this will be moot within a week and no one will even remember what it was all about. § DDima 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether you like it or not, and whether it is recognized by the international powers is irrelevant. It is a symbol of Ukraine demise and final destruction, like the former Yugoslavia. Soon it will fracture in smaller entities, as the central power in Kiev is too weak. It is too late already. The protesters in Kiev destroyed their own country. Forever. It is sad, but it is true. Until the crisis is resolved, I think this event is notable enough to keep it in an article. Perhaps it will need to be merged later.Canadianking123 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another single purpose account soapboxing? Oh jeez ("It is a symbol of Ukraine demise and final destruction") --Львівське (говорити) 18:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Lvivske, I agree. Theres too many of these accounts lately, it seems real fishy to me. § DDima 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also exactly the opposite. People who just want to delete articles that they don't like. "This is nonsense, should be deleted", "This is a joke right? speedy delete". WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a pathetic self-proclaimed soothsayer above. You dad is very disappointed, son. 128.189.191.222 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. Also, anyone who participates in AfDs should get automatically checkusered.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser is not for fishing - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]