Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic

Add links
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 was keep. Ugh, what a mess. "And there shall be socks, and rumors of socks...". The overall consensus here leans towards keep - and weighting towards the end of the discussion, as the events surrounding the article's subject progresses, is a very solid keep. Renaming, if desired, is something to be discussed at the articles talk page; this closure is neither an endorsement of the current article title, or of a need for it to be changed. The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk People's Republic

[edit]
Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is as silly as it is misleading. Today, a small group of violent protesters have proclaimed this "Republic". It is not proclaimed by any official authorities, and it happened today. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and an article of this kind is very much premature. There are already a number of articles on the current crisis between Ukraine and Russia, and this would fit better in any of them. Contrary to other unrecognized state, this so-called Republic has not been proclaimed by any relevant authority. I'd say it takes more than 100 activists deciding to "proclaim a republic" for Wikipedia to do an article on it. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Right now Wikipedia is being used by the same activists to try to make the so called "republic" appear to be something more than it is. That is notWP:NPOV Jeppiz (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update to my nomination After less than 24 hours, the small group of people who "proclaimed the republic" withdrew it.[1] In short, nobody except a few vandals occupying a single floor in a building ever proclaimed any republic, and even they withdrew it almost immediately. If a group of guys in Hull proclaim the Republic of Yorkshire tonight and then withdrew it tomorrow, we would hardly create that article. Nor should we here.Jeppiz (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true. It is amazing what misinformation is used here. The alleged withdrawal has been done by completely unrelated group of people, who have nothing to do with the Donetsk revolutionaries, who took power in Donetsk. "Отметим, что КПСД не имеет отношения к сепаратистам, которые создали Донецкую народную республику, а потом их решение на ход событий вряд ли влияет." [2]Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is English Wikipedia. OK for sources in other languages, but Euronews is an infinitely better WP:RS than some unknown internet site in Russian. But even if you we're right, it only goes to show why the article is nonsense. Nobody knows who proclaimed this republic. Some random guys. Today some random guys withdrew it. A few random guys sitting in a house and calling themselves a state, without exercising any control whatsoever, is not a state by any stretch of imagination.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, your euronews link does not say that declaration was withdrawn by revolutionaries (since it wasn't). Second, in the age of google translate, anyone can check the meaning of quoted words. This is a translation provided: "Note that KPSD has no relation to the separatists, who created the People's Republic of Donetsk, then their decision on the course of events is unlikely to affect." - anyone can check it. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the small group of people who "proclaimed the republic" withdrew it.[3] This is what it says After overnight talks, protesters reportedly gave up some weapons, and agreed to withdraw their earlier declaration of a “people’s republic”. note reportedly and agreed to withdraw, i.e. not withdraw, but reportedly agree to do so. The russian language news clarifies the issue. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep article until the events are clarified. Whether or not it is recognized by any other country is irrelevant. There are other articles for Transdniestria, South Ossetia, Republic of Crimea, so why not this one as well? So we could keep the article, unless the event are proven to be a hoax. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one huge difference. In all the cases you mention (Transdniestria, South Ossetia, Republic of Crimea), local authorities have proclaimed the independence. That's not the case in Donetsk, it's only been "proclaimed" by a small number of activists, not by any relevant political body. If some friends and I suddenly decided to proclaim a "republic" of our own, it wouldn't be relevant for Wikipedia either.Jeppiz (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Not true; The assembly (taken by protesters, just like in the case of Maidan protesters who overtook Ukraine government) proclaimed independence. Many similarities to the case of Kosovo, and Crimea also. Referendum follows. Membrane-biologist (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Clearly, this is not just a random act, but a decison with far reaching consequences. The declaration of independence is the same as in the case of Kosovo, i.e. without referendum, and a new, completely unrecognized so far, entity has been formed. Referendum has been called (same as in Crimea - but in Kosovo even referendum was not called, despite of what Obama misleadingly said), and development is relevant. It is also reported by BBC [4]. Membrane-biologist (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As per what Membrane-biologist said above. I have nothing to add to his words. --Sundostund (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, so I see the people using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes have found their way here. Expected. But if we ignore your propaganda talk about "misleading Obama" and "Kosovo" and instead focus on the facts? Once again, Kosovo, Crimea and many other areas have had their independence declared by local authorities. That is not the case here. The only people who have "declared" this republic is a small group of protesters. And nobody is saying we should not report it. We should, in the relevant article on the situation in Ukraine. We should not let Wikipedia be used as a propaganda tool to make a fictional "republic" seem more than it is.Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We should not let Wikipedia be used as a propaganda tool to make a fictional "republic" seem more than it is." Who are you to decide what is propaganda and what is not? Is the statement: "Russia is a great nation." propaganda? This republic, whatever it is, official/non-official, real/fictional should not be interpreted as simply a piece of Russian Agitprop. Political views do not play into the ground level fact! The fact is that these men have control of the government. They have proclaimed a republic and asked for Russian troops. The deletion of the article should only occur if this massive statement of willpower and force would have no regional or international consequences. It should only be deleted if it is meaningless and has no relevance nor pertains to reality. However uncomfortable the reality may be, this event has happened and we need to record it into the annals of history!Klopsikon (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they definitely do not have control of the governement. All they have control of is the building in which the parliament meets. The governement is not a building and the actual members of the government are not under control of the group that has done this declaration. This article is factually false in several different ways. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Donetsk People's Republic had been proclaimed by a group of activists. Therefore it is a unrecognized entity, like there have been many before. It is not important if we like it (I don't). Electionworld(talk) 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite true, it's not important if we like it or not. It's important if it is correct or not. You say there "have been many before". Could you link to them, please? I don't know of a single entity proclaimed by a small group of activists and within the borders of an indenpendent country. Which other entities do you mean?Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Electionworld. All it needs for an article on unrecognized entity is a claim/declaration, which are well documented. No actual control is needed. ex Taiwan_Province,_People's_Republic_of_China 71.226.33.28 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me remind you, that after Maidan protesters were killed by forces and only after that Ukrainian Parliament made decisions against President, not proclaimed independence! And protesters was not the only one who made those decisions! Ukrainian Parliament working as authorized assembly. So there is a huge difference of situations and you just mixed facts with fake! --Ipadm (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no 'violent overaking' in Kiev, measures were passed by parliament - are you saying the entirety of parliament was illegitimate? In this case, they declared every elected official dismissed and did so with no authority. Get your facts straight. --Львівське (говорити) 14:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean by MPs like this [5]. Seems legit, just like the Maidan snipers that fired in the mass. Overthrow of Ukraine president was NOT legal, and he is still legally a president of Ukraine - the current protesters in Donetsk are as legitimate as violent MPs who ILLEGALLY took rule, in breach of EU-Ukraine deal. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided arguments, not empty rhetoric. Look at the video clip, and claim that it is not violence, if you can! Conspiracy or not (possible false flag operation has been reported by intercept telephone calls that were ADMITTED as authentic), there is no argument against the fact that Maidan protests lead to overthrow of legitimate president in breach of EU-Ukraine agreement. So, Ukraine "revolution" is legitimate as much so as the one in Donetsk - and both should be reported here according to facts, not censored (or shot down, if that is more to your taste!) Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. So every time about 50 guys get together to declare a republic of their own, we should create a wiki article? Not even Russia recognizes this and it is not even 5 hours since they declared it. Wikipedia is not a news site and it is not meant to use twisted wording like i.e. "the new administration", which his just harebrained crap. The Donetsk City Council and Donetsk Regional Parliament are still the legal entities in the region and administrative offices still follow their orders. IF in a week or so this Republic still exists and has established truly some semblance of authority there needs to be an article, but as it is now it is just hyping a few peoples declaration, which are not supported by any facts on the ground. noclador (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no speedy delete - the article is in voting for deletion already (but there is speedy keep though, in the case of nonsense proposals for deletion).
  • Keep, but re-evaluate in two weeks. It's clearly too soon to say what will come of this, but deleting it is as premature as keeping it for the same reason. Let's give this article some time to accumulate, and it if doesn't work out in the longer term we can revisit this nomination. CodeCat (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We need to have an article on Donetsk protests, so this would be a good candidate to redirect to 2014 Donetsk protests to cover all the events since Yanukovych fled. As for an article on this "people's republic" by itself, its not even notable yet by micronation standards, but it is notable as a part of all the Donetsk protests. 100 people breaking into a government building on a Sunday and declaring independence does not make a nation.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the World was many states and republics, and most of the short-lived republics was destroyed, for ex. the Mura Republic and his 6 days. The Mura Republic was also unable "state." Nevertheless, there was such a state. So keep this article. Doncsecztalk 15:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you responded to wrong message, anyway, given that most of the votes for keeping this article comes from unregistered or newly created accounts, I hope that nobody is actually going to take them seriously. It's sad that wikipedia is now being used as a tool of Russian propaganda. I have nothing against having these information here, but on proper pages. Should the Donetsk Republic ever be established and recognized by trustworthy authorities, there would be a reason to have an article about it, but its mere existence is not just doubtful, it's also too fresh to be a part of reliable encyclopedia. This belongs to wikinews maybe, but not wikipedia. Petrb (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is plainly false - most votes for keep are NOT from new accounts. Besides, AfD is not a VOTE, but the wegiht of arguments is what counts. Also, I am sure there will be many more discussion points in the next 7 days. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Our task as armchair historians, is not to criticise or analyze geo-political situations. I will remind you that multiple pages exist on contentious topics, many of which a majority of people contest the veracity of (the Adra Massacre for example, which has been debunked here still operates as a page). We need to overcome our biases and operate under the wikipedia guidelines which allow for and encourage any pages which represent the reality of the world around us. I believe all other points for keeping the page have been brought up by the prior comments. Klopsikon (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the BBC news, it has a full report - just like Maidan protesters who overtook government of Ukraine (by disposing, illegally, president) - protesters took local assembly. In that country, thugs seem to rule all over the place. But, thugs or not, they are both notable for wikipedia purposes (as are terrorists etc), and their UNRECOGNISED state should not be deleted, as it is a fact of life (like Mafia is, or Maidan overtake of Ukraine) Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many good reasons stated above, I don't want to repeat them all, but as long as you want wikipedia to be reliable encyclopedia, which contains verified and trustworthy information, you must not create articles about some "subjects", that were self proclaimed by group of individuals with no recognition whatsoever. Petrb (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proclamation of independence IS verifiable, verified and notable (reported by BBC) - so you are wrong. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is "real political entity"? In controversial cases, like Palestine, Crimea, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, Taiwan, Somaliland etc. - we precisely have limited or no recognition. Wikipedia should NOT decide what is real state or not, but use well established notability criteria. BBC and all other news services are reporting this as a new (unrecognized) state, that leads to potentially very serious developments. That is whats relevant for existence of this article. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct, wikipedia shouldn't decide on this. It's an encyclopedia that should contain verified information. Any self-proclaimed (by few individuals) Republic that is old just few hours can't be easily verified nor trustworthy and doesn't belong here. Once it's clear what is going on there, then it would be unlikely criticized by so many people. Post this on wikinews, not here. Petrb (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same was said on the day of the creation of the Crimean Republic Page and yet look now: with time there comes an appreciation for the fact that history can take certain turns and pursue certain avenues which do not appeal to our personal viewpoints. I implore the people still deciding to set aside their anti-Putin bias and consider what the impact of deleting this article will be if this entity comes into existence? I say wait before hastily erasing a piece of historical narrative. In a week's time it should be decided upon, not now when events are still too fresh. Klopsikon (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny you should ram your ill-formed opinion to the front of the page. Let us define propaganda as per Propaganda: "Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position." The article does not influence anybody. All it states is the objective events that took place in Donetsk. Literally nothing else! If there is a part which is propaganda then talk about it on the talk page before deleting it with the assent of others. The article does not claim that the Republic is a real entity! All it says is that it has been proclaimed. The article does not lend legitimacy it simply chronicles events occuring in Donetsk for future generations to be able to read back on. Klopsikon (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm usually all for including information on self-declared de facto states, but this isn't a de facto state -- it's literally 100-200 rioters holed up inside a couple of government offices under police siege. It exercises no real control. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'de facto' should be the bare minimum line to draw for article creation. Right now they have de facto control of the floor of a building.--Львівське (говорити) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According wikipedia policies, verifiability and notability are the main criteria. We are not to decide who has de facto control - outside references are all that count. BBC news reported about the new self-proclaimed republic; that is what counts here - sources. And they clearly make this new state both notable and verifiable. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is is also not a newspaper. I see people saying that this will be long lasting or that this will gain notability, those are WP:CRYSTAL arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is obvious bias of some Ukrainian voters here, who even go so far to misrepresent people who give here arguments for keep, that are at this point a clear majority. AfD is NOT a Vote, which is what many users here seem to forget. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonsense, otherwise every second occupied house in Europe can get it's unrecognized state article. For news please use Wikinews. Wikipedia is not a live ticker. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No such entity exists. A group of parliament squatters have no power to declare anything, let alone a republic. This is a joke. Wikipedia should not be abused for propaganda or information warfare. An article about the event of the seizure of the parliament should be substituted, in which this declaration can be mentioned. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — 92.229.36.131 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep for now, consider a merge later on once we have a decent idea of how much impact this will have/is having. Coverage is significant, and the potential for growth is considerable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it would be misleading; the name just implies a declaration of independence on behalf of Donetsk, it doesn't imply the level of support received by the declaration. Granted, it's obviously important to clarify who declared independence in the opening paragraph of the article. Orser67 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - The argument that Львівське gives (not being recognized) is not valid, as Somaliland is not recognized by a single country in the world and it has its own article and several articles related to it. So, no double POV-driven double standards or cheap demagogy, we are not talking about a squat...--HCPUNXKID 16:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somaliland has de facto control so your point is moot. These guys don't have control of anything but a room. You can't just declare things and make it so like Michael Scott --Львівське (говорити) 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sealand controlls de facto a tiny territory (a sea platform) and it has its own article, so your argument is null. As Cmoibenlepro had pointed, if we delete this article, we should delete Sealand's one.--HCPUNXKID 09:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Independence has been declared and it's notable with far reaching consequences, so this is a real thing. It may or may not last long, but we have many articles about short-lived unrecognized states here and this one is no different. Feon {t/c} 16:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - all independent states are notable objects worth of historical study, regardless of their perceived illegitimacy or size.XavierGreen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 7 April 2014‎
Comment - sure, every independent states are notable. But that does not mean that a bunch of random guys sitting in a house and claiming to be a state while having no control of it and no legitimacy are notable as states.Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now With the current propaganda support from Russian news agencies, it is borderline notable for now. Might become very notable depending on developments. Wait a few weeks before afd-ing, at least. Thue (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep article about the important new possibly emerging country – that is as populous as Ireland, among others – that has been declared by pretty much the same way as the new government in Kiev or as the new government of the U.S. in 1776. Will we delete the pages for Ukraine or the United States of America, too? Secession simply works like that. It's likely that the independence of the new country cannot be easily attacked by the Maidan regime because the Kremlin would probably quickly send forces if the safety of the separatists were threatened, so it's not reasonable to make a bet that this republic will quickly go away. The people who want to delete the article are clearly doing so with a skewed propagandist purpose and they want prevent others from seeing that millions of people in the Donetsk region doesn't really like the new self-appointed government in Kiev. It's not a task for Wikipedia to selectively suppress the information in this way. --Lumidek (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once again, it might be notable if even a local authority had proclaimed it. Or if it would have any de facto control. Or if it would have any recognition. It has none of that. This is quite simply a small group of people occupying a building (a building! not a town) and saying they are a republic. The event is notable, and should be covered, but having a country-like article and calling it by this name is clearly out of touch with reality. Once again, a small group of people occupy a building, with no recognition and no control. That's all. Jeppiz (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it's relevant at all, look at the infobox for Republic of Ireland. It says it was declared in 1916 (during the Easter Rising), but wasn't actually recognised until much later. The Easter Rising itself was a failed revolution and the people that rose up "lost" (many of the leaders were executed). So let's imagine... if Ireland had remained British since then until now, then would we have taken this declaration of independence seriously, or would we have dismissed it as "just a bunch of rebels occupying the post office", and would we have deleted the Republic of Ireland article for such a reason? My point here is that the significance of the event depends in part on history yet to be written. Maybe this is just a flash in the pan, or maybe this is the start of a years-long process of political upturning much as in Ireland a century ago. I don't think we can tell at this point. CodeCat (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete as a nonsense, promotes crime against Ukrainian statehood. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Thue and others have said, there's a decent likelihood that there'll be enough coverage to justify having an article on this. But it's really too early to say one way or another, and probably will be for several weeks at least. In the meantime, most of the arguments in favor of deletion don't really strike me as being arguments against the existence of this content, but as arguments against this presentation of this content. Which would be a reason to edit/move/merge/etc. the article, rather than to delete it, none of which require this AFD. (And which this AFD would probably actively interfere with.) Keep for now, and even if this turns out to be nothing it'll probably want to stay as a redirect to another relevant page. lifebaka++ 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: They have declared a Peoples Republic of Kharkov now - in this case, they don't even control the building, they made the declaration from the lobby. This stuff isn't notable or legitimate or in any sense real. Just rantings of a few hundred rioters. link. Wait until we can establish notability or de facto control of some sort. Suggestion: Have all "declared" republics in a single article on the event or call it "Eastern Ukraine separatism movement 2014, or something. --Львівське (говорити) 18:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename or merge As above by говорити this could be merged with other articles on declarations of independence by small groups in Eastern Ukraine which have not been internationally recognised. However the content is clearly notable and whichever way things go will remain significant in the future history of the Ukraine and are a significant event in the current crisis. I see no reason for deletion of this article as even a failed coup is a significant event, the title may need to be changed but the content is fine. Tracland (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the Ukrainian military is getting involved to overcome the "terrorist insurgency" still makes it a notable event. A failed act of terrorism with military involvement would and has previously qualified for notability on wikipedia. I'm not saying the title of the article is correct or that a significant amount of editing isn't required but that will be done. The article's content is still notable. Tracland (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a source above that is saying that the protesters do not even control the whole building, unless there is evidence that the protesters are in firm control we should not be making articles about countries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is nothing excellent in biased arguments of Membrane-biologist whose claims do not correspond the reality and politically slanted towards the Russian propaganda. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no any crisis in Donetsk. But that is happening? Some impostors announced themselves a new authority. But authority of what? These unknown people have no any power or influence in the city of Donetsk. They are jast like clowns and they make for media only. Some of them are from russian FSS. But they will go off of Ukraine soon. So all this story is a Much Ado About Nothing. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a real declaration of independence. All that declaration is a fake only wich has been made by some people who are unknown for locals of Donetsk city and for locals of Donetsk region. This declaration just for surface effect. All this story is a much ado about nothing. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now there is more reason to speedy-delete this article. The Ukrainian forces have disarmed and removed the pro-Russian usurpers. This imaginary thing that they called "Donetsk People's Republic" or whatever, will never exist! Hans Kamp (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move - the reliable sources don't report on the legitimacy of this unilateral declaration as if it's a new state - as Wikipedia currently does. It should be documented as an event in progress, ie something along the lines of 'Eastern Ukraine separatism movement 2014' as previously suggested. Alexsau1991 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per above. smileguy91talk 00:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A incident wherein a handful of provocateurs proclaim a republic to aid Russian aims is not encyclopedic just because it receives some news coverage. All crystal ball claims that it will lead to something big shoulod be ignored for now. At most, it should be moved or redirected to an article about Russian territorial annexation of Ukraine territory. Edison (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, most of the arguments here for keep have been "This will turn into something big" and the like, they are WP:CRYSTAL arguments and ignore the sources that are saying that the protesters do not even have full control of the building they occupy and are surrounded by the police. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to a better title, any of the names proposed earlier above (2014 Donetsk Crisis, 2014 Donetsk protests, etc), so that the page becomes about the 2014 event, and not the "republic". As of present, what we have here is a scuffle inside a building, and not an actual republic based on any of the theories of statehood. That said, the event is real and well-documented within third-party reliable sources, which demonstrate notability. Afterwards, we should wait a few days to see how the situation unfolds; if it dies down into obscurity, then merge and redirect into the existing articles on the Ukraine crisis. Presently it's too early to call a definite decision, as things are rapidly changing. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After negotiations last night the Committee who had announced the creation of the Donetsk People's Republic decided to "Reverse the decision on the establishment of the Republic of Donetsk." ("1. Отменить решение о создании Донецкой республики."). That "republic" didn't even last 20 hours! They also canceled the referendum. Here are a few of the sources: pravda.com.ua, novosti.ua, rbc.ua, vgorode.ua, their own press release. Wikipedia is not for propaganda and not a rolling news service. Too many people forget this sometimes. noclador (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable reported story/subject. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given that the proclamation has been rescinded (after the locals complained) as explained by Noclador above, the topic fails the Lasting effect criteria for notability/inclusion for events [7]. It's highly likely that it will fails Duration of coverage. Also, just as a practical issue, we really have way too much Ukraine-crisis related article sprawl with every little occurrence getting its own article and the whole topic becoming one big mess (with a lot of redundancy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, those who said wait and see what happens, well, we've seen that this was just an exercise in smoke blowing just like the other RSA occupations were. Just add this to the list, we dont need an article on every RSA occupation, we have two articles on this topic now, the RSA article and the pro-Russian protests article - this should find a home on either one. --Львівське (говорити) 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true. It is amazing what misinformation is used here by editors who support Ukraine junta. The alleged "rescinding" has been done by completely unrelated group of people, who have nothing to do with the Donetsk revolutionaries, who took power in Donetsk. "Отметим, что КПСД не имеет отношения к сепаратистам, которые создали Донецкую народную республику, а потом их решение на ход событий вряд ли влияет." [8] Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever the fate of the leader, protests etc will be, the act of declaration meets notability standards. Wikipedia is about documenting history, not playing geopolitical games. As long as an article says truth and meets notability criteria it should stay. I also do think that both "lasting effect" and "duration of coverage" arguments to support article deletion are not applicable in this case. Rekrutacja (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which notability standards and how? Don't just assert, explain. (Same goes for a whole bunch of youse above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The entity here was rescinded, and only existed for one day. It was declared by an unelected group of a couple hundred activists, in a large region made up of many people. There is no reason for this article to exist independent of 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. This is WP:UNDUE to the extreme. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC) - Stricken from the record, see my revised opinion below. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete So the subject of this article did never exist, and that only for 24h. I dont see any notability here that would warrant a Wikipedia page. --78.53.82.159 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or merge into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. Contains some good information, but the "Donetsk People's Republic" no longer is (and arguably never was) a real entity. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the declaration of independence was NOT retracted; it is misinformation, the statement against new state was by completely different group of people, not the revolutionaries. So, Republic still exists [9] - NOTE: "Отметим, что КПСД не имеет отношения к сепаратистам, которые создали Донецкую народную республику, а потом их решение на ход событий вряд ли влияет." Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the same applied to the Republic of Crimea article, despite the sovereignty of the region being currently uncertain, I believe this article should remain in place to counter-balance other articles such as those which explicitly reject this being the case - such as multiple articles concerning Ukraine. I do believe that it this article should be written in a more balanced way, as should the Ukraine, Russia, Crimea etc. articles. Italay90 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article Lugansk parliamentary republic has been made after news that separatists planted bombs in a building and have taken 60 people hostage and proposed a new republic. Thes crystal balling arguments need to stop they are not helping any bit and are only providing misinformation. As for the Donetsk People's Republic, this source right here: [10] is saying that the independence movement was put on hold. The article Kharkiv People's Republic has also been made despite the fact that the protesters who declared this state were removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This republic is not yet proclaimed, so there is no comparison. When, and if the republic is proclaimed you can make the comparison. Also, there need to be relevant sources for your Lugansk republic, which confirm that the proclamation is notable. You offer no such thing. Hence, this can't be compared to the very notable cases of proclamations by revolutionaries (or terrorists, whichever you like), like the Maidan protesters (who disposed legal president in Ukraine), Donetsk revolutionaries, USA revolutionaries, Northern Cyprus occupation forces, October revolutionaries of 1917, Kosovo KLA, Mexican Mafia, Tamil Tigers, Palestine PLO, etc - all of which are notable, as are their moves, which were reported AFTER they happened. These are the valid comparisons, not the one you made. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete proclamation has little notability in the events as a whole. Comparatively less media attention too. No state exists. You can't tell me that all it takes is one or two hundred random rioters to declare a state. Sopher99 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that storming of Winter palace and provisional government that was formed in October 1917, i.e. an example of a case when one or two hundred random rioters to declare a state, is not consequential? Or, a few dozen people on a boat, like it happened in Cuba? The new provisional government of Donetsk republic is still holding ground, and this is significant event, whatever the consequences - notability is clearly demonstrated by media coverage, which is top news globally for the last two days. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are linking to a mass spectacle that took place in 1920, the October Revolution took place in 1917 and involved thousands of protesters, in both cases though its WP:OTHERSTUFF - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was refuting the argument that one or two hundred people cannot make a difference. They can, and there are plenty of examples in history, I just mentioned a couple. You are misquoting (and possibly misunderstanding) the WP:OTHERSTUFF; my examples are strictly related to the importance of several hundred of people (but, if you want, one COULD also argue that October revolution and Cuban revolution deserve an article, which I wasn't - but few would argue that they don't) - revolutions do happen in these numbers, so the argument that You can't tell me that all it takes is one or two hundred random rioters to declare a state does not stand (irrespectively of the AfD discussion). Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What point are you trying to make? You refer to highly successful revolutions. It's like referring to Divina Commedia when arguing we should have an article on a book published by some unknown guy yesterday and which still did not sell a single copy. Sure, if this bunch of guys in a building eventually establish a state (or even something outside the floor of a building), it might be worthwhile of an article on this so-called republic. We are not there yet, nowhere near. And what you and many other do not seem to get is this: Wikipedia should not be first We have no intention of reporting news. Almost all of your many many comments on this page completely ignore WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL.Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do happen, but each case is different, here more than a few people are saying words like "This could", "that will", "If it", "Might become" and, "We will" when talking about their keep the article arguments. Yes there are reliable sources for this but not everything that happens in the world gets a Wikipedia article for good reasons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, though. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. With events in the distant past, we can judge by their coverage in reliable sources as to whether they are notable or not. With regard to this event, we have no such knowledge. There is no way we can justify a separate article for this entity, when, at present, it doesn't appear to have a significance whatsoever. Given some historical distance, maybe that will change. RGloucester — ☎ 23:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Some people here seem to think that deleting this article will make the state go away and restore Ukrainian unity! LOL! The mere fact that President Putin and the leadership of the Russian Federation are at the very moment contemplating on whether to intervene militarily to support the republic makes the topic notable – not to mention the fact that one of the main consideration in this contemplation is the possibility that such action can trigger World War III. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This constitutes a claimed political entity and likewise a major chain of unfolding international events which will have deep historic significance. TF92 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There were alot of republics in the Russian Revolution and Civil War that were small, limited or no recognition, and/or shortly lived, yet they have Wikipedia articles. That sets a precedence. Bolegash (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point. Even those small and shortlived republics had de facto control of at least some territory, they weren't just a few guys occupying a building and claiming to be a republic.Jeppiz (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These guys have control of the building, right? That's something. What is the minimum amount of territory to count as "some" territory? A city? A city block? What? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz, what about the Russian_Democratic_Federative_Republic? How much territory did that control?Bolegash (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? We don't make decisions based on precedent here. We base them on policy. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Policy" alone isn't anything to base a decision on.Bolegash (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments appear to prove you aren't approaching this matter with WP:NPOV. LordFixit (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Question. I fail to see how this isn't notable. If a group of a protestors broke into the Nebraska State House, kicked everyone else out of it, and declared the "Nebraska People's Republic", would that not be notable? Just because it's in Ukraine, and a lot of stuff is happening in Ukraine, doesn't mean that this is not notable. Question: What does this hurt? I fail to see how Wikipedia is a lesser place with this article. I also fail to see how it's a better place without this article. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The event itself may be notable on some level, but to give it an article at this time is WP:UNDUE weight. It can be covered in existing articles on the subject, namely 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine and 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations. This causes clutter, and is in a way pushing a POV. Until we know whether reliable third party sources view this act as historical, namely scholarly materials, we cannot determine whether it deserves a separate article, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*or even better: merge with Donetsk Republic (organization). I just noticed that there is a separate article about the organization that declared this "republic". Why should there be two articles about the secessionist movement and the state they desire and have proclaimed, but have not yet realised in reality (except from the occupied building)? --RJFF (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article obviously concerns notable events. All the numerous "no such state" / anyone can declare a republic" arguments for deletion are not valid. The issue is not about how real a state (when compared to other states) this "People's Republic" is, but about whether any entity (state or not) exists with this name, even if it is an entity that exists in name only or existed only briefly. Such an entity does seem to exist with this name, so I think that the article should be kept. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with RJFF. The so-called republic has no territory and no population. Or it is very small, only the building and its surrounding area where people stand, wanting that republic. The riot is notable and encyclopedic to mention, but the republic isn't. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia, because it simply does not exist. It is as little encyclopedic as the statement that I go to a store with my father looking for a neat camcorder. Very nice, but totally irrelevant in Wikipedia. And so is this republic thing that has no value. Hans Kamp (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact is that the republic does control territory. Here is a rebel roadblock 40 km outside Donetsk. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, just because some jerks roll tires into a road doesn't mean they control the region. Vague youtube video is also not a legitimate source or argument. --Львівське (говорити) 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calling your opponents "jerks" does not help your cause. Please stop your name calling and remain civil.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC) user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, were you rolling tires into a road? --Львівське (говорити) 19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems clear now that there is no consensus to delete the article, on the opposite there is more general consensus to keep the article (at least until further developments). The event is notable, and present in global news. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a reason to keep this article (meaning the republic does exist) it is over after a few days. Ukraine will end this nonsense and the article can be deleated. Or you can see it otherwise: Ukraine will annex this republic. If - after a few days - this article isn't deleted, the English Wikipedia no longer represents the truth. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people voting keep are pro-Russian sockpuppets, though. This is like the Crimea fake referendum all over --Львівське (говорити) 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Львівське. Do you have any proof of your accusations? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't do an SPI on everyone, but take you for example: started editing for single purpose in March, your first actions were to edit war and blank info. Suspect. --Львівське (говорити) 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all a AfD is not a vote and secondly I am from Sweden and I take offence to your comment Lvivske. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More putinists than in the Dutch and Russian Wikipedia. In the Russian Wikipedia this article has been deleted. In the Dutch Wikipedia it hasn't been created. That says enough. The moderator should delete it or merge it with (an)other article(s) as suggested above. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is enough time? Two weeks? Two months? And, more importantly, who defines the time period that would suffice? Óðinn (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Carpatho-Ukraine existed for a day only , or Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic existed for 6 days. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No he isn't, and nor are you. You're not comparing like for like. The Donetsk People's Republic doesn't enjoy 'popular' support, or exercise de facto control over anything more than a building. It isn't time that's important, it's reality; the occupation of that building could last for a decade and, unless things change, they still will never have been an unrecognised state by the name Donetsk People's Republic. Alexsau1991 (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the protesters are quite popular in Eastern Ukraine (IMO). Do you think that Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic or Carpatho-Ukraine had control over any territories? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Control over any territories? Even less so the Estonian Salvation Committee. What is more important is that the Estonians, like the Donetsk republic were able to disseminate their "Declarations of Independence" among the population. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Estonian Salvation Committee was appointed by the democratically elected Estonian Provincial Assembly to draft the Estonian Declaration of Independence, nobody elected the mob who proclaimed the so called "Donetsk People's Republic". --Nug (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but the official Ukrainian mass media review. No word about the history of the Donetsk-Kramatorsk Republic dating back to the 20s of the previous century. No word about why people of Donetsk did raise. And what strikes me most is that they are called separatists! Separatists from what? The legitimate Ukrainian state has fallen down in February 2014. The separation from the illegitimate order is probably the most patriotic action in Ukraine.84.104.136.136 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Elena Plotnikova-Kossakowski[reply]

Arbitrary convenience break

[edit]
  • Compromise solution? If I read the arguments of the keep "voters", their main interest seems to be to keep the information about the obviously notable event of the regional administration seizure and declaration of independence and project to create a secessionist republic. The summary of the delete "votes" seems to boil down to the arguments that a separate article on the purported state gives too much weight (or even legitimacy) to the project of a secessionist republic whose proponents do not have (yet) control over the territory they claim. So, could it be a compromise solution to merge the encyclopedically relevant content into Donetsk Republic (organization), 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, or 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations and create a redirect from Donetsk People's Republic to the respective article?
To facilitate a potential consensus, I would like to ask future participants in this discussion to specify if their keep "vote's" motivation is just to keep the relevant content or if they insist on having a separate article, respectively if their delete vote is motivated by the wish to get rid of the separate article without insisting to delete the contents, which could by satisfied by a merger+redirect solution, too. --RJFF (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a very good summary. Can we put a page break above it to direct people to it? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as attracting extensive international attention and certain to be of permanent interest. I cannot imagine a history of the period not including it. The content seems a fair presentation of what is likely to be the state of affairs and can be edited if there are future developments, I also explicitly support keeping it as a separate article, because this is the name under which people are likely to look for it, certainly now, and very probably in the future. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That can be solved with a redirect to appropriate section in the other article. That is, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine#Donetsk. RGloucester — ☎ 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are saying that these two article are mutually exclusive. There could be an article about the republic of Donetsk (and its eventual end), and also an article about pro-russian protests if you want (but it is already very long with the timeline). I think the current article is neutral enough, and the event is notable in my humble opinion. I don't see a good reason to delete it. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Canadianking123 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is WP:NOTNEWS - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse than not being news, it is also WP:UNDUE weight. Giving more significance to an event than it is due hurts the neutral nature of this encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this has the coverage if this is kept then it should be included elsewhere. As said before are we going to start making articles for people who take over a building and declare a republic? A news story yes, practical and appropriate for Wikipedia? No. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the protest was crushed after a couple of hours, then I agree that it would not be notable enough to have its own article, based on WP:NOTNEWS. But this is not the case here. The argument seems to be "I don't like the protesters, this must be a joke right? Please delete this article" which is moot. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Canadianking123 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't give a damn about the protesters, one way or the other. At yet, we have no way of establishing the notability of this incident in scholarly sources. To give it more than basic description of events in the appropriate articles, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, is WP:UNDUE weight, violates NPOV, and harms the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Not all 'news' is historically notable. We need distance to decide whether it is. That's why your example doesn't apply. For that, we have distance, and it is easy to establish notability. Regardless of that fact, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester May I ask you how do you know it won't be historically notable? Unless you have a crystal ball, I think it is wiser to keep until we have the historical distance. Perhaps in 10 years, we could say that the Flight MH370 was not that much historically notable either. But for the moment, it is notable, so it makes sense to keep it in Wikipedia. Also, deleting this article may give too much WP:UNDUE weight to the anti-rebellion. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know. That's why we can't give it an article, at yet. Read what you just linked. The 'anti-rebellion', whatever it is that you are referring to, doesn't even have an article, so I hardly think that could qualify as WP:UNDUE. RGloucester — ☎ 13:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That name does not exist.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying...! Neither does the so-called "Republic" written with capital letters. The phrase Separatist Donetsk republic exists only in Google search, describing an odd incident during a riot (not a real life situation). Poeticbent talk 12:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. There are plenty of reliable sources. A newer one: "Kiev in dilemma over Donetsk People’s Republic" (April 10, ft.com) --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable on its own right that a regional government - the legitimacy of their actions disregarded - has defied the national government for over five days, continues to issue proclamations and is under the constant threat of armed siege by its enemy. Even if the movement is crushed, which looks unlikely anytime soon given the support of Russia, deleting this article would not erase this government from history. --Tocino 09:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Some people here should really stop using arguments like "anyone can declare a republic from a basement" or anything similar because there are no sources covering "your republics". It's as simple as that. These events are certainly notable and are the core of an ongoing crisis. On the other hand, i see many WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments that are also irrelevant. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also many WP:CRYSTAL arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many basement republics do get articles, they are called "micronations", and they also get debated at AfD. This Republic of Two Floors of the Donetsk RSA Building is not much different. But the events in Donetsk are notable so there's no way it will be deleted, whether the title moves is a separate question which will sort out over time.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly, should we also then create an article on the separatist region of Hughesovka that seeks a union with Britain[12]. --Nug (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one contests notability. Instead, what is contested is giving the events WP:UNDUE weight by separating them from 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 13:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this article would give WP:UNDUE weight to the anti-rebellion plans, from the Security Service of Ukraine and the National Guard of Ukraine. I am against censorship. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then seeing that this has spread to other areas in the Oblast wouldn't it make sense to move the page to 2014 Donetsk crisis? The wording there favors neither side. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are all wrong this is not a matter of being pro-russia or pro-ukraine. It is about being true to the current information. To delete this article would be pro-ukraine and would be WP:UNDUE but keeping this article and then after a few months re-evaluate the situation would be non-biased and fair. Users needs to be more distinct between the PRO discussion and the information discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be 'pro-Ukraine', as it would receive adequate coverage in 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. We don't even have an article for the pro-Ukraine response. Keeping the article isn't fair, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't make predictions about the future. Until WE KNOW, we do not DO. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell the article makes no predictions but only presents what is already known. Also Wikipedia daily produces and accepts articles which tells of future events or other stuff that has yet to be resolved. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing user - There is currently a name change discussion going on at this articles talk page. A in my opinion clear attempt at overriding this AfD. We can not have a "consensus to keep this article and its name" here and then a "consensus for name change" at the talk page discussion. It does not work that way and would only make way for a lot of disruptive discussions and arguments between users. If this AfD as closed as Keep and name kept then the name change discussion should be closed and re-started or similar. We can not have two discussions ongoing on the exact same issue in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The process similar to the present civil strife in Ukraine happened in Yugoslavia that fell apart in 1990s, and the right of self-determination of people prevailed. Also, Republic of Prekmurje existed for only 6 days, almost 100 years ago, and we have article with this title. Should not be removed OR renamed. Slovinan (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per the reasons stated above. Regardless of the legitimacy of the "entity", reliable sources confirm its existence & notability, especially in the context of recent events.--Therexbanner (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I can't believe this has been nominated for deletion. Seems to be a case of a WP:WORLDVIEW. As another used said above 'I fail to see how this isn't notable. If a group of a protestors broke into the Nebraska State House, kicked everyone else out of it, and declared the "Nebraska People's Republic", would that not be notable? Just because it's in Ukraine, and a lot of stuff is happening in Ukraine, doesn't mean that this is not notable. Question: What does this hurt? I fail to see how Wikipedia is a lesser place with this article. I also fail to see how it's a better place without this article'

I could not agree more. The deletionism by editors (American or European based, I guess) over every article connected with events in Ukraine is astounding. LordFixit (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to change my position on this article to 'Support', considering recent events that could not've been foreseen previously. However, I'm not opposed to a potential name-change to more neutral language after this discussion is finished. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the same believe that the content should be kept but am unsure if an article on the 'country' should exist, or if it's better to have an article on the conflict in the region as a whole.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the content but rename The content is certainly notable, but the article should be renamed to something like Donbass Uprising. The article is not about a self-governed territory but about the uprising/coup/mutiny/unrest whatever you would call it. Also the country infobox should go as misleading Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Cmoibenlepro is now blocked from editing the English Wikipedia due to disruptive editing. I have reverted Lvivske's edit that struck out all of Cmoibenlepro's comments because no rationale was provided for this change, and WP:Strikethrough does not mention anything about striking out other people's comments (whether blocked or not), only one's own. If the fact that Cmoibenlepro is now blocked is relevant to whether the points that he may have raised in this discussion are taken into account, then I believe that this comment is sufficient notification to the closing administrator (or non-administrator). --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should not be purblind - it is just the case about that future historics will write and mention rather long time and rather often. It is rather notable and important case of separatism. Ашири (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A state has being declared and is in virtual control of its own territory. It also has a sizable Militia/Army. If the state collapses in the next few day's then I would support a delete but at the moment it looks like the Ukrainian government is not going to regain control any time soon so it would be way to premature to delete the article. Tomh903 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic&oldid=1137796260"