Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020)


 * 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 keep. Consensus is that while these articles might benefit from a bit of a cleanup and an improvement in the quality of sources, they don't fundamentally violate any provisions within WP:NOTNEWS and therefore shouldn't be deleted.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 08:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This and similar articles for 2021 and 2022 are exhaustive lists of everything related to this conflict, and are subject to massive WP:TOOMUCH. The majority of the significant events are already covered in the main page on the conflict Unbh (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Unbh (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Unbh (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Unbh (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NOTNEWS comprises four items: 1) Original report: WP discourages the inclusion of "first-hand news reports on breaking stories"; it allows, however, topics of "historical significance that are currently in the news", like the current war in Donbas. 2) News reports: It deals mostly with "news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities"; clearly not the case. 3) Who's Who: on BLP news. Barely a couple of individuals are mentioned in this chronologies, and no bio data is included besides the links to the proper article, if that article exists. 4) Celebrity gossip: No celebrities involved (it could be the subject of some jokes, but iam not in the mood today ;)) Therefore, there is nothing objectable per WP:NOTNEWS in this WP:LIST. Same thing regarding WP:TOOMUCH; the dates are selected according to the amount of ceasefire violations and notable events, and not indiscriminately. Darius (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The war in Donbas is of historical significance, which is why it has it's own page. Every single action in the conflict being reported on a day by day basis as they are here entirely falls within point 1.Unbh (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not true that "every single action in the conflict" is "reported on a day by day basis". The chronologies only include the days of most intense fighting, along with the decisions taken by the now defunct Minsk group, and the different ceasefire agreements, international reactions and the political background, all of them relevant to the history of this conflict. Darius (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. As long as they're sourced I see no problem with these articles whatsoever. Clearly encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly not encyclopaedic. It's a list of news reports of everything that happens without any analysis.Unbh (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And that is what encyclopaedias do. They present facts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The articles are adequately sourced with RS's and are indeed timelines of the ONGOING War in Donbas. As timelines are supposed to do, they do a good job of covering new updates and developments in the frozen conflict and I see not much wrong or inadequate about the articles specifically. This important conflict is still ongoing, and has not concluded, and requires updates, so why delete? In summation, the articles are fine, they do the job timeline pages are supposed to do, and are inoffensive. So I see no good reason to just delete all of it. A better, less ridiculous solution to WP:TOOMUCH is to maybe trim some of the more overly-detailed entries for more concise, encyclopedic reading and to reduce redundancy. How about you put effort into that instead of erasing all of this sourced info on an ongoing conflict people clearly care about and is still very relevant? RopeTricks (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but editors should compromise in reduccing the size in the article in a 50%. I volunteer to keep an eye on it and start reducing its size in case the article is not deleted.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep  This is in line with precedents, for example Timeline of World War II. Also a procedural objection: why is this nominated in isolation, ignoring that it’s part of a series of eight timelines listed in Timeline of the war in Donbas? —Michael Z. 17:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did list two of those - I went back as far as 2019 and found a gap - didn't realise there were earlier ones. They likewise should be deleted. THe whole thing is nothing like the Timeline of WW2 apart from having 'timeline' in the title.Unbh (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: Something huge going on, 2022 probably contains a third of all incidents in this entire conflict. CR-1-AB (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete what this seems to come down to on the side of keep voters is a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As most people should know none of those are valid reasons to keep an article. Especially the last one, which to me is the most glaringly nonsense reason why people would want this kept. As the article isn't really a "timeline of the war", but a non-neutral, bias, anti-Russia essay filled with news articles about every time anyone even slightly related to Russia did anything in the Donbas region. Which should be enough on it's own to justify deleting the article. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to spread propaganda or pick a side in wars by only covering one sides issues. Compare this to any of the timelines related to World War 2 and you'll see what I mean. For instance Timeline of World War II (1939) mentions multiple countries. Whereas, this article uses the word "pro-Russia" 124 times and "pro-Russian forces" 31 times. So the point of it is clearly to make Russia look bad and to make the war seem one sided. I'm not saying they aren't, or that it isn't, but that's not Wikipedia's job.


 * In the meantime, articles should be based on the analysis of a subject by reliable sources and literally nothing in the article comes from or is an analysis of anything. It's just random news stories, based on basic facts, and that are cited almost verbatim from the references. Again, compare that to any of the World War 2 timeline articles, which aren't and actually contain historical analysis of the war. Where's there's any historical analysis of this war the article by experts in the field or otherwise? Answer, there is none. So I say WP:TNT this until a non-bias article based on actual references can be created on it. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't a news source and slanted articles like this one are perfect examples of why it shouldn't be one. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, "anti-Russian" bias is just your perception of things, just as the essays on WP policy you cited in relation to other users. You should know that many Russian news outlets are banned in practice from Wikipedia, thus is nearly impossible to fairly represent the Russian point of view. These timelines, however, made extensive use of a number of Russian sources like ANNA news, RIA Novosti, TASS and others, so the bias argument is plainly groundless. There is not need of too much analysis in a chronology (or list, or table), just the bare facts, and there is no WP policy discouraging this. As examples try List of conflicts in Europe or Timeline of the Croat–Bosniak War. Left the historical (sourced) analysis to the article about the war itself. Darius (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's my perception. Literally everything everyone says in AfDs is their perceptions. Including your comment. We're literally here to give our opinions, not act like brainless robots. So What's your point? Also, I said the article was bias, not the sources. I don't really care if the sources are bias or not, what I care about is the quality of the article. I'm sure you get the difference. As well as why one matters and the others doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge with Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021) and Timeline of the war in Donbas (2022) - This series of timeline articles as they currently stand were created to reflect a recent renewal of a half-decade of frozen conflict. This renewal itself meets notability criteria, and is not excluded by WP:NOTNEWS, but separate timeline pages for each year do not justify this in their own rights - particularly the 2020 timeline, which unlike those for 2021-22, do not reflect the notability criteria outlined in WP:EVENT such as lasting effects or geographical scope (events of the War in Donbas 2014-2020 resulted in little strategic, political or territorial change and were very much localised to the same conflict regions). One might be able to argue for this renewed tension having greater relevance to a separate timeline than the other timelines of Timeline of the war in Donbas, but that does not innately extend to year-by-year coverage. At this juncture, merging the timeline pages would reduce the excess of unnecessary detail per WP:TOOMUCH while still retaining the timeline itself as a reasonable inclusion within Wikipedia's scope. Since at-least-provisional terminology for this period of renewed tension is already present in the form of 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, a Timeline of the 2021-2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis could be appropriate. Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- At a time when it is likely that a low-level border conflict may well turn into a hot war, this is not the right time to delete these articles. I think there may well be a case for pruning these, but this should not be done at present.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * see further vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete – I don't know if anyone still remembers, but we've been here before. See Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016), where the community decided to DELETE all of these timeline articles in 2019. While that discussion did not preclude the creation of new articles, these new ones are produced by the exact same people, and have the exact same problems as the old ones. Once again, I would argue that we should apply WP:TNT, as these are articles are irreparably flawed. They are a day-by-day recounting of news reports (see WP:NOTNEWS) from flawed, potentially unreliable sourcing direct from Ukrainian and Russian sources. No attempt is made to provide a narrative of any kind, nor is there any indication of significance or context for the 'information' displayed. These articles are not encyclopaedic, and should therefore be deleted. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The outcome of that discussion was 'delete', but my proposal at the time was to write annual, summarized timelines, getting rid of unreliable sources and day-by-day reporting. It was accepted by a good number of users, even some of those who supported deletion. This is a link to an a posteriori comment from one of the editors that proposed WP:TNT. Exception made of a number of unreliable sources I later trimmed out, his impression on the new chronologies was favourable. Darius (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors from the old discussion. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * More pings. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My only involvement was in splitting several massive pages, each into several smaller pages. I have no view on the current debate other than that page size must not be increased if mergers take place. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge all into Timeline of the war in Donbas. I am generally not in favor of these timeline type articles. They cover every little detail and provide no context for the importance of such details. But, people seem to keep making and reading them, so they serve some purpose (even if to serve as an intermediate term dump for content that is unsuitable for the main article). Still, doing it by year makes for a lot of material, which I think could be cut down to one reasonable length article. Alternatively, I think they should be kept and revisited when the war is over (which I imagine may take years), and thus when we have better context for what events were noteworthy. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note the existence of 8 articles in the series, as you can see at Timeline of the war in Donbas. Many of these are basically recreated versions of the articles that were deleted years ago, without any real consideration having gone into the matter. I presume you are proposing condensing these 8 articles into 1, which might seem reasonable, but this is basically impossible given the sheer amount of content (largely of questionable quality and little encylclopaedic value) present now. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Peterkingiron. I was notified of this discussion by RGloucester, and voted delete on the month-by-month AfDs; circumstances are now, to say the least, different.  Mini  apolis  20:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this is covered by Stand-alone_lists. Yes, these lists are excessively detailed for a casual reader. However, they are sourced and well organized, so that someone can easily find information if needed. Therefore, a do not see compelling reasons to delete. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Sourced'? A cursory glance of the 2020 article shows two main sources: UNIAN, a Ukrainian source (normally of fine quality, but hardly 'neutral' on this matter), and ANNA News (originally Abkhazian Network News Agency), a Russian propaganda outlet. There is no way that this article, as it stands now, meets WP:V. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources are absolutely reliable in this context, with the proper attribution, per WP:PARTISAN. This has been extensively disscused with other editors. Darius (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * UNIAN is just a biased RS, so it can be used. "ANNA News" - no, that is an outright disinformation outlet, anything sourced to this should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you do not understand WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. At present, we have a situation where two types of sources, Russian and Ukrainian, are positioned in a balance. In fact, a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is meant to present a clear narrative, an encyclopaedic narrative, that represents the consensus of reliable source. It is NOT supposed to present 'two sides' that give the reader no indication as to what is actually happening. The present situation with these articles is intolerable, and no different from in 2019. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's OK, but this discussion on RS has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, that is the rationale invoked by the user who proposes deletion. Darius (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Daily news reports from unreliable sources...most certainly, this has everything to do with WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the information present in these articles is not WP:NOTABLE, which is demonstrated by the fact that no RS are used to indicate such notability. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I insist, RS was not the rationale invoked by the proponent, just WP:NOTNEWS and TOOMUCH. Darius (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is not just a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE, but a case of using unacceptable sources. The solution is as usual: using only sources that can be reasonably viewed as acceptable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Targeting the richest (both in monetary and nuclear sense) person inevitably leads to 3rd WW, one way or other; so, my compiling of some 10 different (16-17th century) Italian versions of Il Principe (along with commented translations) some decades ago, those who like to kill, proceed anyway, in spite of, various "serious" attempts ☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 00:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - These timeline articles are necessary to prevent the article itself from getting too large.XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - In “current” (<8 years) changing geopolitical situation they are more than suitable, imho; as for sources: OSCE provides data (e.g., https://covid19.gov.ua/ — protects itself from online attacks...“of mine, when updating COVID table”...); UNIAN has not been strictly adequate (even factual errs during last years); but there are other reliable sources too, though used on rear occasions. ☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 06:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same problem as the last time these timelines were discussed. After the entire series was deleted, all of the timelines were resurrected on a year-by-year basis instead of the former four articles per year. The editors did make an effort to remove the worst unreliable sources but then continued to add unreliable sources like TASS indiscriminately. I just edited some of the recently added content using reliable sources but what's the point if other editors continue to hide what's important under endless compilations of "small arms, automatic grenade launchers, anti-tank recoilless rifles and 82 mm mortars", citing TASS. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those issues can be resolved by further editing and removal/replacement of non RS, no need of WP:TNT hysteria like in the former monthly timelines. And remember that the rationale disscused in this AfD proposal is NOTNEWS and TOOMUCH. Darius (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because I noted NOTNEWS and TOOMUCH does not preclude the discussion of other problems with the articles when editors come to assess them. This isn't a court where the lawyers can object the accused isn't on trial for another crime.Unbh (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. These annual timeline articles do need to have unreliable sources removed, some meaningful compression should be done, some WP:RELTIME copyediting is needed, but deletion is not justified: WP:NOTPAPER - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The reports from the OSCE SMM daily ceasefire violations tables appear to be rather systematically missing. The OSCE SMM is, by construction, a more neutral source than either Russian or Ukrainian sources. Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020) does match the dramatic drop to nearly zero of OSCE-SMM-recorded ceasefire violations in late July 2020, so it's consistent with the OSCE SMM sources. Boud (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC) OSCE SMM reports. Boud (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. A per-year breakdown on a timeline family of articles seems reasonable, and deletion isn't a substitute for cleanup. Merger doesn't need approval at AfD. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, it will get long very quickly. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep / or not — m'2nd "arrival", yet, currently (in 24 hrs or so; at 00:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)) the situation is evolving so fast that it seems appropriate to rename this part (timeline) to something like the 22th centuries 1st serious (or not) nuclear threat on democracy.


 * Keep or Merge with Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021) and Timeline of the war in Donbas (2022). The article is of popular interest. Solatido  09:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (or at worst merge). We have in Timeline of the war in Donbas a list article giving the successive annual articles and a list of the principal events.  I do not like the idea of merging as this will involve merging a long series of articles, which will result in one that is unmanageably large.  My preference is to retain the existing structure.  A lesser preference should be merging all articles 2014-22 into a single article.  The criticism is made that there is a dearth of references, but the appropriate course of action in a list article is not to have direct external references. as these clutter up what is essentially a list article.  However the listed articles should of course be ones with a full apparatus of references.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per Benjitheijneb. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now but eventually Merge with other articles. The entire topic is conflict which has to violate NPV and therefore I think this "vote" is ridiculous without knowing the positions of the voters. But from a historical perspective, these are useful details that should not be lost, and there should be no rush to lose or "misplace" any of this information. (And this voting mechanism should be improved, too.) (So what is my viewpoint? I'm curious about what's going on in Ukraine and I'm inclined to regard invasions of other countries as wrong. So far it sure looks like an invasion to me.) Shanen (talk) 18:43, 27 February 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.