Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine


 * 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. Already covered, and covered much more fully, in the articles on the separate entities.  DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced POV article by a POV editor. Two of the three territories are not occupied by Russia. Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just an observation by someone about a political situation. Fails WP:NOPAGE...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep well, this article needs further development but it is not a POV it is a fact that those territories are occupied by Russia and Russian supported green men. That's why when parts talk to each other in Belarus, on the other side is Russia not DNR or LNR.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We have articles about the Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic, none of them is called an occupied territory.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you want to see that those territories are occupied, after Russia's official statement? It is a fact that those territories are under Russian control we live in 21th century and politicians do things that can't be always described in scientific manner but in reality it is the finest case of modern occupation methods. -- g. balaxaZe   ★  17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in Wikipedia we require independent (read not Russian, not Ukrainian) reliable sources. Everything else is original research. And if these sources exist, they should be added to the LPR and DPR articles first.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention this article Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) where it is clearly shown and sourced that those territories are under Russian military control (occupation). There are also some external sources that say the same: forbes.com, trenchantobserver.com, understandingwar.org, foreignpolicy.com (if it's needed I will find more).-- g. balaxaZe   ★  17:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the article you mention says quite the opposite to what you are saying - it says both territories are under the control of pro-Russian groups and at some point Russian troops entered them. This is not the same as Russian occupation (of which Crimea is an example).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope
 * Forbes:"On November 14, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its preliminary findings that “there exists a sensible or reasonable justification for a belief that a crime [my italics] falling within the jurisdiction of the Court ‘has been or is being committed’” within the Crimean and Donbas territories of Ukraine. On release of the ICC report, Russia announced that it would withdraw from the organization because it "failed to meet the expectations to become a truly independent, authoritative international tribunal.""
 * Trenchant Observer: "As official Russian troops withdraw from border, Putin continues stealth invasion and occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk region by irregular forces"
 * ISW: "Russia and its proxies have escalated operations involving re-deployed heavy weapons in eastern Ukraine in February and March in order to set conditions for future operations and to test the levels of escalation the international community is willing to overlook."
 * Foreign Policy "Ukraine’s occupied Donbass region is a pointless burden. It’s time for Kiev to accept that it’s better off without it. Although the Russo-Ukrainian war appears to have been largely forgotten in the West, it’s still claiming lives every day. Indeed, the last two months have seen a major escalation by Russia and its proxies, leading some analysts to expect a full-blown war."
 * Also do not judge Russian occupation of Donbass only by those sites, I've mentioned Wikipedia article as well, these few sites just are additional prove that say territories are Russian occupied (by proxies, green men, separatists do not matter).-- g. balaxaZe   ★  17:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fact is clear Russia occupies these territories using various methods and one can't ignore that Russia funds, Russia serves it by military vehicles, sends there its soldiers and trainers and many other things... This is what we call a military occupation.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  18:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely wrong. "Occupation" means the martial control of a territory. There is no evidence that Russia administers the martial control of a territory, quite the opposite. Even a suggestion calling these entities "puppet states" was rejected by consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @ g. balaxaZe   ★  your arguments appear too weak for what you are trying to establish. You haven't provide anything to even contest the fact that it is not occupied and besides you cannot just push your political opinions in Wikipedia. Here things work only when there is a consensus among editors...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per 86.17.222.157. WP:POV content from a WP:POVPUSHING editor, and the title violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per policies already invoked by other editors. "Temporarily occupied areas" is a term used by the Ukrainian government, not third party WP:RS, therefore the title is a WP:POVFORK... and any assumptions about the nature and length of "occupation" contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. This is subject matter covered by the DPR and LPR articles where any WP:DUE, WP:NPOV content belongs. Trying to stay on top of WP:COATRACK articles has been difficult enough without letting more seep in through the cracks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. If the phrase "temporarily occupied territories" carries any legal connotation within Ukraine, the article could be kept with extensive editing to remove POV bias.See Free area of the Republic of China for a possible analogous case. Absent this, however, the article should be deleted. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete indeed per the already mentioned policies. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL - no indication this is temporary. We shouldn't be playing political games in WP titles or we'll have to rename Turkey to Temporarily Occupied Territories of the Byzantine Empire. LavaBaron (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2016 (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.