Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Ukraine,  and United States of America. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge/Redirect or Draftify : Notable subject with WP:RS to back it up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)  [add new options. reasoning here 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)]
 * Could you identify sources currently used in the article that establish notability for the topic, quoting from them if they are not available online? --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability?  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution.  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Not RS but fringe, as Rsk6400 has mentioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article is based on non-mainstream sources and supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was in some way engineered by the West / the U.S. / the CIA. Reliable historians like Andreas Kappeler, Timothy Snyder, and Serhii Plokhy don't even mention the subject of the article (and are not used by the author of that article). Rsk6400 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Added quotes from Timothy Snyder and Serhii Plokhy. Regarding Andreas Kappeler. Not sure why not all his books have been translated into English if this researcher is so important. Any other questions regarding the sources used in the article? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Snyder quote you added clearly shows the insignificance of American involvement. Did you read the context ? Did you really understand the meaning of the expression "That was the best bit they [the Russians] could come up with." ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm talking about. Taking sources and composing an article presenting a view opposite to what's in those sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: POVFORK. This is not even an encyclopedia article, nor a personal essay. It looks like content taken haphazardly out of a larger article, and some aspects of it suggest AI-written content. If the topic is notable, a total rewrite would be required. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, this clear pov fork. Listing a bunch of comments from officials tied together with fringe writers and a huge over emphasis on stuff tangentially related to the protests with the clear aim of pushing a fringe theory is beyond wp:undue—blindlynx 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who exactly do you mean by "fringe writers"? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I too would like to know which of the authors used in the article are as insane and out of touch with reality as the people who believe in the Flat Earth. Authors cited include university professors and other academics, mainstream Western press, etc.  Please identify at the article talk page, so we can delete any authors that are that crazy.  I opened a section on the talk page here for this purpose:  Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013%E2%80%932014_Ukrainian_Revolution--David Tornheim (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The main problem I see with the article is Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the fringe is contained to the conclusions the article draws from the cherry picked stuff—blindlynx 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did look at Timothy Snyder and it's clear he is dismissive of the importance of Nuland's behavior in giving food to protesters and of the leaked phone call. He sees the coup as driven by a popular mass movement ("the work of more than a million people presenting their bodies to the cold stone") and hence any behavior by the U.S. as inconsequential.  In a case like this, the Wiki article can be corrected by accurately including Snyder's opinion.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You calling it a 'coup' does not inspire confidence given that academic consensus is that it was not a coup and that that language is used by russian propaganda—blindlynx 17:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I got the term from John Mearsheimer--who Britannica identifies as "a prominent American scholar of international relations"--who published this piece link in Foreign Affairs calling it a coup. You're not suggesting he is a Russian troll and Russian propagandist are you? Why do I have the feeling a bunch of editors will now jump on Mearsheimer's article, find everything possible to discredit him, and try to make him out to be a "fringe" figure for using the term "coup"?
 * I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."
 * Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority.  That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.
 * I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.
 * Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in an article on him if it would not get removed . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.
 * It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.
 * For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.
 * (,, and even ) —blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: To Improve the Article:  Please help identify any WP:OR/WP:SYN here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution.  Please identify any claims of "Fringe authors" here:  Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013%E2%80%932014_Ukrainian_Revolution.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: This whole article seems to be a POVFORK giving undue weight to the Kremlin-backed conspiracy theory that the USA was behind the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. It has many issues, which have been raised on this talkpage and which I've tagged in the article itself. It cherrypicks sources, as well as details from those sources, to push this fringe theory. It also cherrypicks events and statements that seem to support the theory, going into excessive detail on them, while ignoring or downplaying others that don't. Swathes of the article also go into great detail about things barely related to the protests, seemingly to push a narrative. I think it's absurd that a lengthy article has been written on this but not on Russia's large-scale direct involvement. Even if all the excess was trimmed and all the other issues were dealt with, the article's existence would still promote a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theory. Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc. – Asarlaí  (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the strong support for delete, could we instead turn the article into a draft in either 's userspace, mine, or somewhere else relevant--such as one of the articles you mention? Or make it a merge/redirect? (per your recommendation "Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc.")
 * Even if the consensus is that it is unlikely to ever become an article, I do think there are valuable sources related to Revolution_of_Dignity, Revolution_of_Dignity, etc. and it would be preferable to have a history of the discussion of those sources, quotes of those sources, and concerns raised here and on the talk page about both. I think it would be helpful to keep the history rather than have all that effort thrown into the garbage can--which is what happens when an article is deleted.
 * I have changed my iVote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just merged all that I thought worthy of preservation to the section at Revolution of Dignity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those edits preserved very little of the many sources and quotes of the original showing the U.S.'s actions and interactions with Ukraine leading up to the protests, during the protests, and immediately after Yanukovych left. This is why I suggest we make sure the original article is either drafitied or the article is changed to a redirect--to preserve the relevant material that has not been included. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fringe (sic) authors and cherry-picked sources are not "showing" anything. Even if you don't want to listen: WP follows mainstream. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What else do you want to keep? The discussions are all about why most of the article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia—blindlynx 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV-pushing, conspiracy-theory-ridden mess. The article is full of vague claims and suspicions, which start in the lead with the phrase "while some say..." and continue throughout. Toadspike   [Talk]  00:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.