Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Kyiv Convoy


 * 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 no consensus. I suggest that once this is no longer part of an ongoing conflict or battle, we will be better able to assess its lasting importance (or lack thereof).  Sandstein  20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Kyiv convoy

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

This seems to be an unnecessary fork of Kyiv offensive (2022), which would be an apt place to describe the convoy. I propose that this article be  merged  redirected to the article on the offensive, where the subject can be covered in sufficient depth. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC) (updated: 22:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC))
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There's plenty of articles on it, and going forward there certainly will be more. This article is probably going to grow as the situation unfolds, so it makes sense to me to have a separate article, for space reasons, as the Kyiv offensive (2022) article is otherwise likely to be too big. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to be careful not to blur the lines between an encyclopedia and a news outlet. Wikipedia is not responsible for reporting news, but notable subjects. Take a read of the wikilinks in my !vote below. Your rationale that, quote, "it makes sense to me to have a separate article, for space reasons", is unfortunately in itself not a valid reason to keep. Let me say that if the invasion is still going in perhaps a month or so and this convoy remains exactly the same, unmoved and unchanged with tons of reporting, then the case is "stronger", depending on the reporting of it. There really is not much to say about a convoy without unnecessary bloat of information that is more pertinent to the invasion itself. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge back a trimmed version to parent article then Delete, where do you start with this? It's a convoy, WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, part of the article (Reasons section) is basically just WP:SPECULATION, while other parts are just discussing the invasion itself not directly related to.. the convoy. I am sure Deathlibrarian means well, but this is just not a sustainable article as things stand. Yes, it's curious when reading reports on it, in the news, but in relation to the invasion only. Can redirect if desired, but I see little point really. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 15,000 soldiers and hundreds of tanks and trucks... is not your average convoy! If it was just an unimportant convoy, it wouldn't have numerous articles written about it, trying to assess it's size, its lethality, and what its current situation is. There is a lot of worldwide attention on this convoy...and the future of Kyiv..and therefore Ukraine depends on what happens to it.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "and the future of Kyiv..and therefore Ukraine depends on what happens to it." - this is speculation. We don't know anything at this time. What if next week, or next month, another few convoys of similar size appear? Do we have an article for those too? At this time, this is news. It's quite an important bit of news in relation to the invasion and it may become something more significant in time, but it is not an encyclopedic subject right now, and may never be. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * May be the future of the Ukraine is speculation, but the future of Kyiv is pretty closely linked to a 60 kilometre long convoy that is coming to siege it!. Also, the President is in Kyiv, and so far has vowed not to leave. It's not likely for there to be another convoy of this size appearing anytime soon, as US defence intel reports Russia has just about committed all its troops...they have left staging areas, and they are now inside Ukraine. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is primarily responsible for a siege on Kyiv, then maybe we'll have Siege of Kyiv (2022) or something similar, as a hypothetical notable future event. A convoy is not a notable event. It's a convoy. It hasn't even done anything yet. At best (and this is me stretching my faith perhaps a little far), it's WP:TOOSOON, but likely any event that comes about as a direct result of the actions of this convoy will in all probability have more of a chance to satisfy an article in its own right as a potentially notable event. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact we already have Battle of Kyiv (2022) so that partially already answers my point. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well there is discussion here (and other places) of its failure having an effect on the entire war....so clearly it's quite important, and therefor no....it's not your average convoyDeathlibrarian (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have amended to a merge !vote as the underlying content is relevant to the conflict, as it was before the split. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge into Battle of Kyiv (2022). While I could understand the sentiment in favour of keeping this article, still, WP:TOOSOON to predict notability. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge: I think this is an important enough topic to keep but not as its own article, maybe have a section on the page of a different article relating to the Kyiv offensive dedicated to this Charmingander (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


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

PS: Baykar Bayraktar TB2 is an interesting section. All claims made there are about TB2 strikes far away from Kyiv, as far as I can tell. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * integrate either into Kyiv offensive (2022) or Battle of Kyiv (2022), as this convoy is nothing but an aspect of these engagements, since the outcome of these engagements are likely to highly depend on the outcome of this convoy, and the convoy only exists because of these engagements. So, I'd say, make this page a redirect to a section in Kyiv offensive (2022) describing it in sufficent detail. --1234567891011a (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge into Kyiv offensive (2022), not quite good enough for its own article, but it can be of use in another article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't see it notable enough to have its own page and should be part of the Kyiv offensive related articles. - UtoD  14:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I’d like to see this expanded into an article on the Russian military planning, deployment, morale, corruption, and logistics problems that this convoy is a symptom of. —Michael Z. 21:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice one I think that's an interesting idea and probably notable idea for a page - there's plenty of articles discussing it, and it's general so doesn't really apply to any particular offensive. Overall, if fully fleshed out, it would be substantive enough to have its own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge into Kyiv offensive (2022). I don't discount that this particular convoy may eventually become notable as a standalone subject, but it's a bit too early to have forks for very specific aspects of one battle which isn't even over. Atchom (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as nom. I think that merging is probably better than blanking and redirecting it at this point. It's clear that some of the content is going to be usable in a fuller version of a Kyiv Offensive (2022) article that focuses on narrative prose rather than being a pseudo-list. The convoy narrative deserves mention in that offensive's article, if nothing else to describe the state of the offensive's logistics, but a merge is superior to a redirect at this point, in my book. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge - per comments above. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I say Merge. While there are tons of news stories, it isn't enough to warrent its own article. Felicia (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The wording, especially in the lead, needs to be either corrected to the past tense or asof'd (see WP:RELTIME) so that in the hypothetical case that nobody does any more edits, the article still remains accurate. The content itself has been very widely commented on in WP:RS, and could possibly characterise a key turning point in the invasion: either leading to a rapid collapse of the Russian invasion, or possibly a quagmire attempt to occupy Kyiv. The convoy may also turn into a major component of Russian conscript fatalities ("sitting ducks"). This seems to me to be a justified split from Kyiv offensive (2022). Boud (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Boud (I've already rewritten the lede a bit), as well as the observation that Kyiv offensive (2022) currently barely even mentions the convoy/column anywhere. It has so far barely had any direct impact on the battle of Kyiv or its environs yet (most attacks are coming from the east). As its strategic objectives are still unclear, let alone what it will do in the future, its activities are still distinct. That, as well as the fact that merging them would create a lot of confusion and lack of overview, justifies two separate articles (for now). Obviously, we should remain cautious that the stall might not be as problematic and damaging as it might seem (some speculate all too soon that the convoy will soon be entirely crippled, but such claims may be influenced more by wishful thinking than evidence), and that the convey probably still has a lot of offensive potential. I also note that several news reports don't call it the 'Kyiv convoy' or anything, but just refer to its length (e.g. 'Russia's 64km-long military convoy') rather than speculating on its destination (which could be wrong). For now, I think the title is okay, just because virtually all RS were/are expecting it to eventually attack Kyiv, but there are many things we do not know at this point. Some claims remain unsourced, I've put up citations needed for those, but generally, all sources here are RS and most claims are backed by those RS. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the level of media attention is sufficient for an article, it may become a major turning point in the war one way or the other MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment All unsourced claims have now been removed or verified by RS. Irrelevant speculations have been removed, duplications have been deleted, and incorrect claims about drone strikes have been corrected (note: all drone strikes reported so far have occurred elsewhere in Ukraine, such as Sumy and Brovary, but not at this convoy; I recommend users to read news reports very carefully and avoid mixing events and locations up. So far, Ukrainian troops appear to have only used ground fire against the convoy). The latest information suggests that several units of the convoy are splitting up to seize and control certain strategic locations in the areas northwest of Kyiv rather than marching straight towards Kyiv, providing yet more evidence for the view that it is to be described separately from Kyiv offensive (2022), and really doesn't meet the definition of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, but does fall within WP:SPINOFF, and therefore fails the nomination for deletion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the tidy up, and removal of where things may have strayed from the sources, its's always good to have a second set of eyes look at things.I tried to address the citations needed tags in my last round of edits. I must note I'm pretty sure that some of the earlier sources stated that drone strikes hit the column, but perhaps its become more obvious that isn't the case now, but in any case its great you've done a tidy up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Everyone can make mistakes like that from time to time, including me. I also thought that Bronk had stated that drones had hit the convoy, but on listening closely a second time, he was talking about the earlier drone strikes that happened around Sumy and elsewhere, clarifying that in response to that, the Russian military has in fact increased air defences around the Kyiv convoy, making it difficult to replicate the earlier successes (at least with manned aircraft; he curiously didn't say how effective the TB2s might still be against the column. The National did give some information about that, so I mentioned that). Overall, I think you've done a good job of providing revelant information from RS, thank you for that. There's a lot of political, military, strategic, logistical etc. talk about this convoy, what it has done and might do, and its strengths and weaknesses, so bringing all that knowledge together in a balanced Wikipedia article is important for the public. We'll see what happens next. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I put a British English tag on the page and talk page, but I notice you're actually Australian, and are mostly using Australian news sources. Shall we change it to Australian English? I don't know that there are significant differences between them (British English is my personal standard), but if there is a discrepancy, I'm okay with letting Australian spelling and grammar precede, since you set up this article in that style. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes that's good you did that - British English and Australian English are 99% the same, I didn't even know people tagged articles in Australian English to be honest!. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the article as been expanded and cleaned up (thanks to Nederlandse Leeuw and Deathlibrarian for the work), and has received a lot of attention both by the media as well as military experts/researchers. Applodion (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a military phenomenon. many military experts say it is the longest military column in modern history. there are extremely many reliable sources. Tsans2 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is now clearly notable in its own right. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above "Keep" arguments, it's a notable event within the conflict - but I concede that it needs work to bring it up to spec. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It's already part of other Kyiv offensive related articles. BobNesh (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, the concern I have is that this is relevant to the conflict "right now", but we have no idea to what extent or what the longevity is. I said above this could be WP:TOOSOON and stand by that, as its apparent notability is only inherited by the wider conflict. It's reported extensively in the news, but that doesn't mean it's got long-term notability when things move on. I think right now it's too early to say and the article is too much WP:CRYSTAL. I'll revise my !vote to merge back to the parent article until (or unless) we can demonstrate an independent notable subject from this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 March 2022 (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.