Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donbas secessionism


 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Donbas secessionism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is pure WP:OR. Virtually no text, just the maps, no sources to support the topic per WP:SOURCE and WP:V. The lonely, non-academic, Radio Free Europe source from 2004 (!) does not even mention secessionism as a phenomenon. Hillock65 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for such an unprofessional start. It'll be extended soon. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 03:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No context what-so-ever. Basketball  110  03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - NOR. —TreasuryTag talk  contribs  08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think this is a terrible article, but it's obviously not brilliant either. At the moment I'd be more inclined towards a delete, but then I can't read the Russian language sources, and if they can establish that this is genuine, then I'd be more inclined towards a keep. There might also be a possible merge target that users may be able to identify. I don't know.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I think we need an article illustrating the East-West relations in Ukraine, however I don't think this particular article is the best choice for it and don't agree with the title and should me merged/expanded into a bigger one. --Kuban Cossack 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no official organizations, which declare secessionism aims. Ans-mo (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. Ostap 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is original research, unsubstantiated by reputable secondary sources; large parts of it are already succinctly covered under articles such as the Orange Revolution. In addition, I checked the Taras Kuzio's reference, and it provides no support for these claims.  Should be deleted based at least on WP:No original research (section 1 and 3), and WP:SOAP (section 2). --Riurik(discuss) 19:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Donetsk Republic a notable political movement in Ukraine that got sufficient news coverage to pass the notability threshold. Then do a partial rewrite to remove author's OR about the secessionism in general and focus more on a specific political movement. --Irpen 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First of all, just because a criminal organization makes the news does not make it notable encyclopedic content.  This so-called "political movement" was banned by the Donetsk Court for organizing actions threatening the territorial integrity of Ukraine.  If there is going to be an article written about these thugs, it should be done from scratch and labeled accordingly:  Donetsk Republic (criminal organization).--Riurik(discuss) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me either way minus the strong rhetoric. They are obviously a radical movement but what makes them thugs? Since there is no ambiguity, I see no need of the parenthetical dab, especially in such a POVed form but that, I guess, belongs to a different topic. --Irpen 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is often overlooked is that the whole organization is made up of roughly 50 people. Soccer hooligans have more. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Greggerr (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorporate topic into a future article (basicly a deletion of this). Some ideas for the title are Politics of the Donbas, or separate it into two articles on politics of the oblasts; perhaps a wider scope of Regional politics in Ukraine, including trends, local movements, etc. —dima/talk/ 02:10, 12 March 2008 (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.