Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Kyiv Convoy

Russian Kyiv Convoy

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Russian Kyiv Convoy (edit | 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)

This seems to be an unnecessary fork of Kyiv offensive (2022), which would be an apt place to describe the convoy. I propose that this article be merged redirected to the article on the offensive, where the subject can be covered in sufficient depth. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC) (updated: 22:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC))

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep There's plenty of articles on it, and going forward there certainly will be more. This article is probably going to grow as the situation unfolds, so it makes sense to me to have a separate article, for space reasons, as the Kyiv offensive (2022) article is otherwise likely to be too big. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: You need to be careful not to blur the lines between an encyclopedia and a news outlet. Wikipedia is not responsible for reporting news, but notable subjects. Take a read of the wikilinks in my !vote below. Your rationale that, quote, "it makes sense to me to have a separate article, for space reasons", is unfortunately in itself not a valid reason to keep. Let me say that if the invasion is still going in perhaps a month or so and this convoy remains exactly the same, unmoved and unchanged with tons of reporting, then the case is "stronger", depending on the reporting of it. There really is not much to say about a convoy without unnecessary bloat of information that is more pertinent to the invasion itself. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, where do you start with this? It's a convoy, WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, part of the article (Reasons section) is basically just WP:SPECULATION, while other parts are just discussing the invasion itself not directly related to.. the convoy. I am sure Deathlibrarian means well, but this is just not a sustainable article as things stand. Yes, it's curious when reading reports on it, in the news, but in relation to the invasion only. Can redirect if desired, but I see little point really. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  15,000 soldiers and hundreds of tanks and trucks... is not your average convoy! If it was just an unimportant convoy, it wouldn't have numerous articles written about it, trying to assess it's size, its lethality, and what its current situation is. There is a lot of worldwide attention on this convoy...and the future of Kyiv..and therefore Ukraine depends on what happens to it.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  "and the future of Kyiv..and therefore Ukraine depends on what happens to it." - this is speculation. We don't know anything at this time. What if next week, or next month, another few convoys of similar size appear? Do we have an article for those too? At this time, this is news. It's quite an important bit of news in relation to the invasion and it may become something more significant in time, but it is not an encyclopedic subject right now, and may never be. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  May be the future of the Ukraine is speculation, but the future of Kyiv is pretty closely linked to a 60 kilometre long convoy that is coming to siege it!. Also, the President is in Kyiv, and so far has vowed not to leave. It's not likely for there to be another convoy of this size appearing anytime soon, as US defence intel reports Russia has just about committed all its troops...they have left staging areas, and they are now inside Ukraine. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  If it is primarily responsible for a siege on Kyiv, then maybe we'll have Siege of Kyiv (2022) or something similar, as a hypothetical notable future event. A convoy is not a notable event. It's a convoy. It hasn't even done anything yet. At best (and this is me stretching my faith perhaps a little far), it's WP:TOOSOON, but likely any event that comes about as a direct result of the actions of this convoy will in all probability have more of a chance to satisfy an article in its own right as a potentially notable event. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  In fact we already have Battle of Kyiv (2022) so that partially already answers my point. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well there is discussion here (and other places) of its failure having an effect on the entire war....so clearly it's quite important, and therefor no....it's not your average convoyDeathlibrarian (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete as unnecessary fork of Kyiv offensive (2022) and WP:NOTNEWS. The convoy/traffic jam is not notable in its own right. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• integrate either into Kyiv offensive (2022) or Battle of Kyiv (2022), as this convoy is nothing but an aspect of these engagements, since the outcome of these engagements are likely to highly depend on the outcome of this convoy, and the convoy only exists because of these engagements. So, I'd say, make this page a redirect to a section in Kyiv offensive (2022) describing it in sufficent detail. --1234567891011a (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge into Kyiv offensive (2022), not quite good enough for its own article, but it can be of use in another article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see it notable enough to have its own page and should be part of the Kyiv offensive related articles. - UtoD 14:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I’d like to see this expanded into an article on the Russian military planning, deployment, morale, corruption, and logistics problems that this convoy is a symptom of. —Michael Z. 21:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Nice one I think that's an interesting idea and probably notable idea for a page - there's plenty of articles discussing it, and it's general so doesn't really apply to any particular offensive. Overall, if fully fleshed out, it would be substantive enough to have its own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Merge into Kyiv offensive (2022). I don't discount that this particular convoy may eventually become notable as a standalone subject, but it's a bit too early to have forks for very specific aspects of one battle which isn't even over. Atchom (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment as nom. I think that merging is probably better than blanking and redirecting it at this point. It's clear that some of the content is going to be usable in a fuller version of a Kyiv Offensive (2022) article that focuses on narrative prose rather than being a pseudo-list. The convoy narrative deserves mention in that offensive's article, if nothing else to describe the state of the offensive's logistics, but a merge is superior to a redirect at this point, in my book. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge - per comments above. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I say Merge. While there are tons of new stories, it isn't enough to warrent its own article. Felicia (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)