Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharkiv People's Republic


 * 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. A lot of the "keep" arguments boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFF and generic historical arguments without reference to relevant policy. The few "keep" !votes that do actually address the sources fail to establish how this passes WP:NOTNEWS. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Kharkiv People&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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


 * 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)
 * It doesn't seem like it's just a few activists though Dapiks (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence the appeal to merge content into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Strong Keep - nothing differentiates this article from Donetsk People's Republic which is still up. Dapiks (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

*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 Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 8.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Doncsecztalk 10:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)  user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sealand is a Micronation this proclaimed so called republic is not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (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)


 * Delete per No More 18.  Northern  Antarctica  ( T •  ₵  ) 14:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)  (blocked sock account)- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:JUSTDONTLIKEITCmoibenlepro (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)  user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability guidelines. Also, anyone who participates in AfDs should get automatically checkusered.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - The Bushranger One ping only 21:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But in some cases it should be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

*Strong Keep This is part of major development, that will probably end up by either federalisaton of Ukraine, or by eastern Ukraine breaking away as more and more of the regions break away. In any case, this is a significant interim phase; Ukrainian editors try to change reality that they do not like by deleting this article. Membrane-biologist (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Many |short-lived states have articles. Why not this one? It seems very notable for the Ukrainian crisis.    [  Soffredo  ]   Journeyman lv3 small.jpg 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It never had a state or control over anything other than a building. This is WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems you dont know the Principality of Sealand...-- HC PUNX  KID 14:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the Principality of Sealand is a Micronation which has gathered sources over a period of at least a few months, this here is a republic claimed within the lobby of a building which ended after police arrested all involved, news coverage ended on April 8 - 9th or so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please read WP:CRYSTAL? Wikipedia does not make predictions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:HOAX. The ground floor lobby of the Regional Administration Building was briefly occupied by drunken hooligans who apparently claimed a "People's Republic" as a joke, but were subsequently arrested by police a few hours later and the building cleared. --Nug (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per several reasons stated above, in contrast with the ridiculization efforts by some Ukrainian nationalist editors and others who want to impose their POV on all the articles related to the Maidan events.-- HC PUNX  KID 14:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * HCP do you see anything new in the news that mention the Kharkov People's Republic? This fails WP:N an I point to WP:NOTNEWS here. A group of people occupied the lobby of a building declared a republic and were soon taken out by the police. The arguments which you are pointing too above mostly say "What about article x?" a poor excuse for a reason to keep during a deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2014
 * Poor or not, the fact is that in WP articles about proclaimed states that lasted less than 24 hours exist, some of them with less historical significance than this one. So removing this one while maintaining the others would be a crystal-clear cas of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and POV-driven double standards.-- HC PUNX  KID 11:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Whether we like it or not this was a proclaimed republic of 1 day. And an article for this republic is perhaps not needed in the sense that it made any big impact but it still was a republic for 1 day and it was not wrong to create the article or against Wikipedia guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article does go against Wikipedia guidelines, it fails WP:N per WP:LASTING, and WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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) 16:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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) 01:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesnt exist, it never existed, you're thinking of Donetsk.--Львівське (говорити) 01:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG, has numerous reliable sources. Also a case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. If the same thing happened in USA or UK, no one would dispute such an article LordFixit (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock account - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true. I would dispute such an article, especially considering we have an article that already covers the situation adequately: 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. This is nothing more than a WP:POVFORK. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay so it has reliable sources what is your point? Not everything that has reliable sources passes WP:GNG, look up "Kharkiv People's Republic" do you see any new sources reporting on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it happened in the United States, we'd have something like 2014 invasion of the Kansas Statehouse if it were an isolated incident, or Kansas seccession movement if it were part of a larger action. --Carnildo (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Protestors occupied a government building for a single day before being evicted. Claiming this counts as a country is an absolute farce. As the article on the 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine already covers the occupation of the building, a merge is not necessary.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - small group of militants occupying oblast administration building for few hours is not worthy of a separate article, even if those militants make hilarious proclamations about creating new country. Relevant stuff seems to be already in 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine anyway.--Staberinde (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Regardless on whether this entity is successful the fact remains that it does exist and there are publications that refer to the 'Kharov People's Republic' and therefore it does conform to Wikipedia rules re WP:N. Comment there seem to be a lot of Ukrainians on this discussion with a predisposition to removing anything that does not conform to the political adgenda that they are trying to pedal. Wikipedia is not a soapbox   Greatestrowerever   Talk Page ''' 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Existence does not prove notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "the fact remains that it does exist " - no, it does not. Can we at least be honest and informed here and not spout lies? People in the lobby of a building declared sme stuff, but it does not "exist" nor did it ever. Donetsk is the only example thus far with any credibility.--Львівське (говорити) 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Currently it's not notable, it's similar to WP:ONEEVENT. And it certainly has near-zero WP:PERSISTENCE. --Amakuha 14:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It's a notable event according to every future history book - a group of people organize and start a fight for independence. It's not just an "idea" but in a way a fact (not as much if the state will survive or not, but that such an attempt was made). How come it's ok to have an article about the Ukrainian People's Republic, but not about that state? Let's be neutral and judge events by their notability rather by which side are you on. Ukraine gained independence from the USSR by "a bunch of people making a declaration", Ireland gained independence by "a bunch of separatists (according to the UK)" Who started a war based on their right for self determination. It's the same story with that state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't justify keeping articles just by what future source could potentially say about them, that is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, all of the states you listed were actual functional states with a centralized government, international recognition and control over their territories. This is absolutely not the case for Kharkiv, as this "nation" was just an RSA building taken over for a day by pro-Russian protestors (and who were then promptly expelled by the Ukrainian government). Calling this a state is beyond absurd. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as these events are going on for the past week or so, with no sign of stopping. 58.168.49.9 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC) (IP has made few or no edits outside of this AfD) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Kharkiv has been calm since 13 April, according to the OSCE. The events currently happening are in Donetsk Oblast, not Kharkiv. Please don't conflate events. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not for events made up while you're standing in the lobby of a regional government building one day. If an entity bearing this name manages at some point to take control of something for more than a couple of hours, then sure, have an article.  But as it is, it's just giving a fizzled protest more prominence than it deserves.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep, Just like Cyprus Turks have formed their illegitimate "state", Khrakov republic is another example of such self-proclaimed republic. It is notable and has reliable sources. The ongoing crisis is top news in the past weeks. Nemboysha (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again this argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not everything that has ever existed is notable for Wikipedia, there is no lasting coverage here other than a splash in the news which is why we have the guideline WP:NOTNEWS. In fact according to this source: there has been no protesters in front of the building since April 13th and news coverage pretty much stopped after all the people inside the lobby were arrested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Let us discuss one more week, may be IRL situation could become more clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:UNDUE that this should have its own article. This material in this article would more aptly be presented in as a couple sentences in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - a very short lived, but notable entity that really existed and now it's historical. Meets WP:GNG and so far (in aspects relevant to this discussion) it only differs from Donetsk People's Republic in its longevity and success. Feon  {t/c} 14:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It existed very briefly, and is already covered in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. There is no need for an individual article, which would be WP:UNDUE. Saying it only differs from the Donetsk Republic on 'longevity and success' is exactly the point. There has been no continuing coverage of the Kharkiv Republic (as it ceased to exist), and we are WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound WP:OTHERSTUFF-ish, but we have a plenty of articles about entities that existed for a day or so (little longevity) and were crushed afterwards (little or no success). Longevity and success are not the point, historical relevance is the point. Feon  {t/c} 16:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All of these states had a centralized government, control over their territory and some level of international recognition. I agree that only existing for a few days is not grounds for deletion if (and this is a very important "if") notability requirements are met. This so-called republic does not meet those requirements. The fact that a legitimate state that only existed for a few days deserves an article does not mean that we should be creating articles to cover every single time in human history someone proclaimed that their tiny patch of land was a state. If this were a legitimate argument, we would be flooded in articles about completely non-notable micronations.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:1E, it existed only briefly and it was not sufficiently significant to warrant its own article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: As short-lived states go, this one appears to have been especially so. Total population: maybe 70.  Area controlled: the lobby of one building.  Lifespan: a few hours.  Impact after it vanished: none.  A short-lived state that vanishes from public consciousness shortly after it vanishes from the world doesn't strike me as being notable enough for an article. --Carnildo (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Slovenia and Croatia proclaimed independence in 1991; after short war in Slovenia, SFRY army overtook border posts, similarly like in Khrakov now. However, only after political Brioni decision was the real process of independence (ending in recognition almost a year after the proclamation) did the process end. So, this republic proclamatio is an important event, and deserves an article, whatever happens with Ukraine in the future. Also, it is wrong to call it "dissolved" since crisis in Ukraine is not yet solved (just like crisis in Yugoslavia did not end after disarming Slovenian militia). LoncarLoncici (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Similar precedents such South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and their proclamation of independence has shown its too early to wave it away.121.213.171.3 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)) (IP has made few or no edits outside of this AfD) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge - Holy WP:AADDs on both sides. The question of whether this is a legitimate republic, whether it's a legitimate anything, whether it's nonsense or a publicity stunt, whether it gives them credibility or not, etc. -- none of that matters for the purposes of Wikipedia, which considers notable that which has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The briefest of searches returned more than enough to render notability uncontroversial (well, should I suppose). The other question is whether it merits a stand-alone article vs. merging into the unrest article. To me this has received so much coverage on its own up to the present that a stand-alone article seems warranted. Unproven lasting effects don't automatically mean non-notable. If we start thinking about what the existence of a Wikipedia article means in the grand sociopolitical scheme of things, Wikipedia will quickly fall apart. [Update: Changed from keep to weak keep or merge based on concentration of reporting. Though I do think it's too early to delete based on no lasting significance, merging for now is a reasonable compromise.] --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This so-called republic consisted of around 70 protestors that occupied an RSA building for 24 hours before being removed by government officials and the only coverage it got was a few days of news coverage. I understand that we normally shouldn't delete current events articles due to lack of demonstrated impact, but its a decision I support here. The "republic" was created less than two weeks ago, yet it has completely fallen out of the news. There is no reason to believe that this will have a lasting impact, and if it were to become notable, we could just split off the section on Khariv in the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (which already covers the so-called republic in much greater detail than this article does). As the article is already covered in the article I listed, a delete should be justified.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that this has particular 'Kharkiv People's Republic' has not received 'so much coverage'. People seem to be confusing the events in Donetsk, with regard to the Donetsk People's Republic, with Kharkiv. Nothing has happened in Kharkiv. There haven't been protests there since April 13, according to the OSCE. The 'Republic' doesn't exist. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

*Keep I re-iterate my comments above. It is irrelevant whether or not this declared state still exists. The fact is that it did exist for a period of time - whether recognized or not - and there are legitimate sources cited in the article that prove its Notability. There is no question that this article should be kept, just as the Donetsk People's Republic page has had its AFD discussion resolved as a keep.  Greatestrowerever  Talk Page ''' 22:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This user has already voted keep earlier in the discussion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2014 (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.