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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

RybAxel

RybAxel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another tag team consisting of random midcarders thrown together for a few months, in the same tradition as such deleted articles as: Tons of Funk, 3MB, Kofi Kingston and R-Truth, and Team Rhodes Scholars. They achieved nothing of note and with Ryback being injured it's unlikely that they will become notable in the coming months. LM2000 ( talk) 23:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 ( talk) 01:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I know nothing about them, but to help ensure that the outcome is based in policy, would anyone be able to comment on coverage in reliable, third-party publications? So far, we've got length of time together, amount accomplished, and injury status, none of which is based on the GNG. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  All of that is part of WP:ENT, which these guys fail to meet. We have match reports but in the past we've needed more than that to cover WP:GNG concerns, especially for tag teams because all of this information is covered in their individual articles. LM2000 ( talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment It seems a lot of the coverage (in reliable and non-reliable sources) focuses on this team's failure to make an impact, after being thrown together to solve the problem of two singles similarly falling short in their angles. It's a weird situation, when people are famous for not being hot enough. I'll have sleep on this before voting (though the individuals are certainly notable, for reasons other than failing). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete, mentions of them in reliable sources are nothing more than match results. WP:ROUTINE. Nikki♥ 311 21:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing to show they are notable as a team. No significant coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 18:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Oroccoccoro

Oroccoccoro (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an apparently non-notable art movement. I am unable to find any sources that cover the subject in any depth. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment-I was thinking about putting a tag on this earlier, but was unsure, also I figured I wait a little bit as usually I think they want you to wait a day before putting up a AFD for an article. Still I am thinking delete for now. Wgolf ( talk) 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete, entrely non-notable. Term made up by a couple of non-notable artists, no reliable independant sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. ( non-admin closure) Ansh 666 00:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Nick Baird

Nick Baird (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable diplomat. Been there, seen that but what has he done to become notable? Very few and trivial mentions in sources. Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Userfy I'd like to rehab this if there's consensus for deletion. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Are ambassadors of notable countries (in this case the UK) in notable countries (in this case Turkey) considered notable for their position alone? Seems no less notable than the likes of Simon Fraser (diplomat) anyway. More content here: [3] Lack of content alone is not really a reason for deletion. The article's title should probably be changed though, to Nicholas Baird. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 02:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Troutman, how are you going to rehab it? Do you know the gentleman personally? Did you work with him, as a diplomat or a journalist and you know how he achieved outstanding notability? I mean, if he managed to convince his government, say, to the necessity of the Queen to realise a state visit to Turkey, for instance, after 20 or 25 years? Well, if that professional success was not reflected in the media, it still does not help us. Or he simply did his job to receive and send delegations, organize receptions etc? Those receptions would certainly be covered by the socıety pages of the press, at least in the capital that he served but that kind of news do not really help us establish notability. They dont even help to verify that the person exists, because we have no doubt about that. There are official CVs (of him also) everywhere in the internet. (The user whose primary mission in WP is to follow me everywhere in WP -I guess to prevent me from destroying it suddenly- has found a very good one.) Indeed we call these articles BLP but in fact we dont make simple biographies. There are specialized biography sites in the web, people come to us to see an academic approach, as this is an encyclopedia. I am not sure if I could explain it well enough so I will summarise. We are sure about the existence of Mr Baird. Personally I am also sure he made a good job here (I live in Ankara). But that was his job. I need to see if he did smth outstanding and that was not kept in the secret archives or known only by personal contacts but also has been reflected in reliable (written) sources. Got anything? Then we dont need to wait for deletion, the article is all yours to rehab it. Thanks for that. Regards. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 19:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Why should I have a User Name?: Thanks for pinging me. I wasn't watching this discussion. No, I don't know this guy and have no special insight into the subject.
  • At the risk of being labeled a deletionist, I !vote userfy when I see a subject that might be notable but isn't currently up to snuff. I don't want eyesores like this to persist but I also hate to lose the seeds of potentially good content. I'm also a proponent of the concept that all ambassadors should be presumed notable, much as WP:MILPEOPLE does for flag/general officers. (I am aware that the consensus opposes this idea.) I collect these articles (I currently have three, looking to make this number four) and hold them (for months, if needed) until I'm able to rehab them. If I can't improve them in the immediate future they'll sit until decades from now when more historical analyses have been written and I can add those sources to support notability via GNG.
  • I'm not voting keep right now because this article doesn't meet retention criteria and I don't currently have the time or inclination to prove otherwise. I'd just like the opportunity to fix what's broken at my own pace out of public view. I encourage you to check out the other articles I've created, which are linked from my user page. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • As a note, consensus doesn't oppose the idea that ambassadors are inherently notable (an idea I also agree with). There's actually no consensus either way. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. We are kidding, right? As holder of both the CMG and the CVO, he holds two awards either of which would be considered to confer notability under WP:ANYBIO #1 on their own! We have long established that anything over a CBE is sufficient. These honours aren't given out in cornflakes boxes. If he is notable enough to have these awards (for actually doing something constructive as opposed to just being alive) he is easily notable enough for the minor celebrity fest that is Wikipedia. And naturally, he does have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per Necrothesp above, plus there are plenty of references to make this is good article [4], [5], and [6] to name a few. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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 close as speedy (duplicate) ... discospinster _talk 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Wolf Paradе

Wolf Paradе (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a duplication of Wolf Parade. (Note that this article uses non-standard characters in the name to generate a character that looks like an e, but is not.) Editors other than the author have removed the DB tag (do I hear a distant quacking?) so let's just do this right. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 20:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

London PX

London PX (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SPA creator has not established that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG; neither has anyone else in the more than six years it has been tagged, and I was unable to. Boleyn ( talk) 20:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I'm just not coming up with any coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow    talk 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 02:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. The name of the article is generally agreed to be problematic. I am going to move it to General National Congress (2014) and delete the POV name. This does not preclude editors moving to a better name after more careful discussion Spinning Spark 08:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Self-proclaimed General National Congress

Self-proclaimed General National Congress (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content of this article is covered by the Post-2014 elections section of the General National Congress article (which it was merged to, before being reverted). This is a claimed continuation of that body and there is no point in a separate article. The title is also wholly inappropriate and is used nowhere else on the internet except here. Number 5 7 20:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The elected government has clearly stated that this new group is not a continuation of the GNC but a small group of people procaliming themselves to be. ^[1] It is very POV to claim they are the same body, as User:Number 57 does. To include them in the GNC article would be confirmation they are the same body, which is both factually dubious and not wikipedia's job. This group of people currently runs the national capital, Tripoli, by using armed militias, and the result is an armed conflict. This is clearly notable. Also notable is that their armed groups are sending people round rivals houses to carry out abductions and burn them down ^[2]- notable and quite different from the GNC that served before, which was more of a parliament. Other much less important groups of politicans, such as Suffolk County Council, get pages, and they are not this notable. As the political situation progresses, there will be more happening- this new grouping has only been around for a few days, so the article will have plenty of time to expand. Contributorzero ( talk) 20:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Inclusion in the GNC article does not give any legitimacy or otherwise to those claims - it merely points out that the claims exist. The comparison with Suffolk County Council is a non sequitur, as that is nothing to do with rival groups claiming to be a legitimate body. Number 5 7 20:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

You just changed what you wrote earlier. You said This is a continuation of that body and there is no point in a separate article. but now you have edited it to look like you never said that. Other users please check the edit history. User:Number 57 may be making dishonest edits. Contributorzero ( talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

*sigh* I changed it (by adding the single word "claimed") to clarify my point because you were being pedantic about it. Number 5 7 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Can we please calm down and discuss with some measure of diligence? I agree with User:Contributorzero that there are two separate bodies at play here. Compare: Rump Parliament/ Long Parliament. I also think User:Number 57's claim with regards to the name has some merit. Maybe we can come up with something less loaded than "Self-proclaimed ..."?-- Anders Feder ( talk) 20:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I have no objection to a reasonable name change- I couldn't find a name that fitted well. Other titles I have considered include "General National Congress (25 August 2014)" "New General National Congress" and "Second General National Congress". "Self-proclaimed General National Congress" just seems the most objective name for a group that proclaimed themselves GNC. Contributorzero ( talk) 21:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't believe this is comparable to the Rump and Long Parliament. The body has been in existence less than a month - this sort of thing (people and bodies claiming to be the legitimate whatever) happens with depressing frequency in countries without a functioning democracy. If it's still around in a year then it may be notable enough for it's own article, but not at the moment. Number 5 7 21:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Plus this article makes it clear that it's a (claimed) continuation of the same body; "The Libyan parliament that was replaced in an election in June reconvened on Monday". This really doesn't need a separate article. Number 5 7 21:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It shouldn't be necessary to claim so categorically that "this doesn't need a separate article" and dig trenches around that position. "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." [8] On Wednesday, the head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya stated in a briefing before the UN Security Council that the tenure of the General National Congress "has expired" and that "the former" (not the present) General National Congress had been asked to convene by "Fajr Libya (Libya’s Dawn)". [9] We can obviously not present both sides literally in the naming of the articles or article, but why act as if it is an open-and-shut case when at least two relatively official sources are in disagreement? I hope others will give their opinion on which action will be better too.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The source you present merely cements the case that this is the same body, as I think you have misunderstood the wording - it clearly states that this is the original GNC reconvening - not a new one being formed. Number 5 7 08:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No, it doesn't. It says "the former General National Congress" is convening (not reconvening). If a "former Parliament of the United Kingdom" decided to convene, would that then make it identical to the Parliament of the United Kingdom? Obviously not, because it is the constitutional conventions of the UK which supremely define the Parliament of the United Kingdom - not random subsets of former parliamentarians.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 09:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

If a former body is convening, then it is reconvening – you're resorting to semantics. The British Parliament example is flawed, as it has had multiple versions (following each election), whilst the GNC was a temporary body that has only been elected once. Number 5 7 10:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not "resorting" to anything and there is nothing "flawed" with the example. You are just being obstructive by not wanting to acknowledge that in both cases it is the law that defines the existence and composition of the assemblies, not some subset of its former members.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 10:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not "not wanting to acknowledge" the law at all. What I'm saying is that this is a continuation of the body, legal or otherwise, and we don't need a separate article to detail that continuation. I shall leave others to judge the validity of your comparison with the British Parliament. Number 5 7 10:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Maybe you should focus on who are attending to this Congress sessions. If it's formed by exactly the same deputies I would consider it the same body. But if some members have resigned or, more important, are being replaced by unelected ones, which is highly probable (like Omar al-Hassi), then we should consider that is not the Congress but some other people that claim to be that body. -- 79.157.177.108 ( talk) 21:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

But as you yourself say, they are people "that claim to be "that body", i.e. not a different one. Number 5 7 21:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

So if someone claims that he is member of the General National Congress, even though he has never been part of it nor has been voted as a representative, is he the General National Congress? -- 79.157.177.108 ( talk) 10:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

No. But if it needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia, surely the place to do it is a footnote on the existing article, rather than creating a new one. Number 5 7 10:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

yes it is comparable to the Rump and Long Parliament. this article should exist! ( if we delete this the old article will contradict itself, becuase its introductory lede will begin with the word "was" meaning it existed olny before and the footnote will mention that it exists as a new version. i also agree that with Anders Feder that we should replace "self-proclaimed". i propose the new title as "new General National Congress" with a little n, btw the consensus here is that this article should be kept only Number 57 doesnt agree on that Dannis243 ( talk) 02:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The name is obviously problematic, but it's clear that this entity needs its own article, considering it is one of two rival governments in a sovereign state at this time, a situation attracting a fair amount of international attention per reliable sources. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Kudzu1: Why does it need a separate article to the existing General National Congress article when it claims to be a continuation of that body? Number 5 7 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I think the Long Parliament/Rump Parliament comparison is a good one. The new GNC clearly doesn't have the same composition as the old one, and isn't obeying the same constitutional mandate. It does claim to be a continuation of that body, but then again, so did the Empire of Trebizond claim to be a continuation of the Byzantine Empire. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
      • @ Kudzu1: Having had more time to think about that comparison, I have realised that it's completely wrong. The difference between this and the long/rump parliament is that they were two separately constituted parliaments - the long parliament was a normal parliament before it became the "long" one, and the rump parliament was a new one. In this example, the General National Congress is the long parliament (as it is continuing to meet) and the Council of Deputies is the rump parliament. Creating a separate article for this "continuation" is like splitting the long parliament article into two articles; one for its existence prior to the rump parliament and one after (so you'd have three articles rather than two). I hope that makes sense? Number 5 7 19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Number 5 7 10:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. The question raised here is whether Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) (with incorrect uppercase I) should remain as a split article separate from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and War in Donbass, or whether it should be omitted (redirected, merged or deleted) as a content fork. In assessing consensus, I'm discounting all arguments that are only votes without an argument, or that do not address the abovementioned question. This includes arguments for keeping or deleting the article because of the belief that Russian troops are, or are not, in fact involved in the current fighting (that question can be addressed, if need be, by renaming the article). The remaining arguments center on whether this article should be retained to cover only the most recent phase of the conflict allegedly distinguished by direct Russian involvement, or whether that phase should be covered as part of existing articles. There are valid arguments for either approach, and there is no clear solution resulting from the application of policies and guidelines, and no numerical consensus (although there is a slight majority of editors who would prefer omitting a separate article). In finding an absence of consensus, therefore, I recommend that editors focus on clearly delineating the scope of the various articles dedicated to the conflict and on cleaning them up (merging or splitting as necessary) after the conflict concludes.  Sandstein  19:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014)

Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a PoV fork of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and War in Donbass (currently fully protected) that was created without consensus and for unjustified reasons. I tried to move it to the draft space, but editors protested. I tried to nominate it for speedy deletion under criteria A10, but that was contested. Apparently this is a "new topic", they say, but that's not true at all. The articles cover the same scope, only that article hasn't been updated. Instead of updating that article, a POV fork was created, and this is highly inappropriate. Please speedily delete this article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - if the content is about the Russian-Ukrainian war, as a theater in of itself from the donbas war (w/ separatists) and intervention (incl. crimea) and all that preceded the mainland invasion, I think a split is justified, especially if the language now calls it a war. I dont agree with the current title, as you eluded to, invasion and intervention make the scope too similar. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No one calls it Russo-Ukrainian War, and even if they did, they'd be referring to the Donbass War. In other words, you'd be in the running for renaming that article, not creating a new article on the same war. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No one calls it Russo-Ukrainian War - true, which is why the title of the article is NOT "Russo-Ukrainian War" but "Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014". But since you bring it up, no one calls it "Donbass War". I have not heard that one anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

"War in Donbass" was decided as a WP:NDESC title through consensus. "Russo-Ukrainian War" is a title that is neither neutral, nor non-judgemental, nor decided through consensus. I was referring to the initial title of this article, regardless. "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014)" is just another way to say 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Change the name of that article and update it, don't make a new article that deals with the same subject matter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

"War in Donbass" is a made up name, ultimately. Many call it "Russian-Ukrainian War", and there is nothing non neutral about "Russo-Ukrainian War" at all. Non judgemental? Consensus? What are you even talking about? -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 16:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It is a "made-up name". That's the point of WP:NDESC, which I wish you'd read. RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm going to quote you from the Donbas War talk page for a second: " The correct [name] would be Russo-Ukrainian War." -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I said that as opposed to "Russia-Ukraine War", which is improper with regard to standard war-naming conventions. I did not say that the article should be renamed or that forks should be created. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Well then...point taken -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

RGloucester, Thank you for your ongoing efforts to maintain proper objectivity on Wikipedia, but I have to respectfully disagree.

The name "War in Donbass" was agreed to at a time when reasonable minds could differ as to whether Russia was invading Ukraine or just allowing Russian nationals to join separatist Ukrainian forces in fighting against the Ukrainian government. At that time, it would have been non-nuetral and judgmental to describe the conflict as the "Russian Invasion of Ukraine." But times have changed and the fig leaf is gone. When columns of Russian armor are operating in Ukraine as part of the Russian chain of command and those Russian forces in Ukraine are engaged in combat with the forces of the recognized government of Ukraine, what you have is an invasion. It would be judgmental to call it a "wrongful" or "illegal invasion," even though certain agreements have certainly been violated, but it is clearly an invasion now. As circumstances change, the agreement regarding what to call the conflict - and how many articles should cover its different parts and phases - should properly be reconsidered. I personally believe that all events from the invasion (from military bases already there) and seizure of Crimea to the present invasion of eastern Ukraine by Russian forces now should properly be discussed as part of the "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine." Failing to call something what it clearly is, simply because Putin refuses to openly admit what he is doing, is non-neutral by suggesting the existence of ambiguity where there is none.

However, I acknowledge your expertise in this area and look forward to learning from your response.-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - switching to Neutral, see explanation below - it is neither a fork nor POV. What is the POV that is being pushed? The article, both in title and scope is based exclusively on highly reliable sources. Saying that an article "was created without consensus" is weird. Pretty much all Wikipedia articles are created without consensus. There's no central governing committee that approves article for creation. The other article, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, mostly covers events in Crimea. This article covers the participation of Russian troops in the Ukrainian conflict that occured in the last weeks of August, with an obvious emphasis on recent events. Like I said, reliable sources are writing about an "Invasion". I should note also that 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was recently nominated for AfD as well (and it was kept) and RGloucester voted to delete that article. So this is suppose to be a fork of an article that the nom wants deleted anyway? Doesn't make sense. And there's no Wikipedia guidelines here which would support deletion. Volunteer Marek ( talk)

If that article was deleted, I would support the creation of this article. It wasn't. As it was kept, we have to use the article we have, rather than creating new ones to avoid the mess that is at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. If that article was renamed 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea, then this new article could deal with the intervention in Donbass. However, consensus (which I disagreed with) was consistently against limiting the scope of that article to Crimea, both at the recent AfD and in previous RMs. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've really thought a lot about this. And all those nonsense "Delete, I don't like it" votes are not helping their side either. But anyway, I do understand the argument that this is FORK. Not necessarily agree with that argument (hence, only Neutral), but understand it. I do strongly disagree with the notion that it is a POV fork. It is not. It's based on reliable sources and there isn't much room for argument on that front, except perhaps as to the appropriate name. I do think that the scope of this article is somewhat different than the "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" one. This was particularly true a few days ago but since then that article has improved a bit and it is now less - though still somewhat - true.

I should emphasize that I still very strongly oppose deletion of this article. If not kept, it should be preserved for its article history and the valuable material that is in it. So if it is not kept, I only favor a merger.  Volunteer Marek  23:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

VM, the problem fundamentally lies with the fact of a massive number of articles (many of which are really WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) having cropped up as a result of recent events in Ukraine. Now that we have some hindsight, I think it's time to regroup and mull over the existing articles: what is salient content and what is not. This would entail some serious work, but the clusters of information need to be pulled together. Only from a greater overview can it be determined where forks and splits are appropriate. It seems to me that, at the moment, we're working backwards from how to maintain articles as they stand in order to salvage them when we should be tossing the lot into a single heap and reconstructing logically. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep with disaproval. I think that this is (a) a very bad article, (b) prematurely created, and (c) reflects the presence of a POV on the part of the contributors. However, I think it must be assumed that it has been created in good faith. PoV fork deletion is something that should only occur in extreme circumstances, and I see no evidence at this point that the article is being monopolised by a PoV agenda -- deletions of factual information, for instance, or edit warring, or refusal to seek consensus. There are many possible remedies to the current state of the article, and deletion should only be considered when these remedies have been denied or exhausted. I think it is a factually correct assertion to say that an invasion is a special case of intervention, and if an invasion occurs such that it generates significant historical detail -- is more than a paragraph in an article on military intervention -- then it is appropriate that the intervention article should link to an invasion article. 0x69494411 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven ( talk • contribs)

If that's the case, then the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article should be renamed "2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]". At present, the Crimean events are not painted as an invasion, implying they are different from the present events. Your approach would imply that, which doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree, the invasion began with Crimea and can't be considered separate, unless this topic is solely "invasion of mainland ukraine" but then will we need a new article for every oblast invaded? i say no that's dumb -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Which is why the easiest thing to do is rename 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, expand it with the material from this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

i looked at that article and its entirely about crimea -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Lvivske: Did you not see the huge EASTERN UKRAINE section? RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree with the concept of merging this article and the Crimean one into a single article regarding the "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine," but how can you justify separating the intervening phase of "War in Donbass" from the other parts of the invasion? The so-called war in Donbass has always been an international conflict with Russian soldiers "on leave" and weapons (on loan?) crossing the border, the supposed separatist forces being until very recently led by Russian (non-Ukrainian) nationals, and cross-border artillery, missile and anti-aircraft fire. One can debate about the percentage of the pro-Russian forces who came from Ukraine, but this has always been fought on the pro-Russian side by a mixture of Russian soldiers, Russian proxies and presumably some Ukrainians acting independently of Russia. Russia has been involved from the beginning as part of its ongoing efforts that have included the invasions of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In that context, I think the "War in Donbass" proxy conflict is fairly viewed as being just one phase of the Russian invasion. It's off-topic, but who wants to bet whether the ultimate Russian insistence is that any peace leaves Russia in control of Crimea and a land corridor leading to it, with no insistence on keeping most of the rest of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions?-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete and merge to War in Donbass and/or 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Obvious POV fork to get around full protection of War in Donbass and opposition from certain editors to defining Russian actions in eastern Ukraine as an invasion. I don't think this was done in bad faith, but it isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work, as frustrated as we all sometimes get with red tape and tendentious editors. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Striking my !vote for now. Let's see how the reconfiguration of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine shakes out. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It was quite nice of Putin to invade Ukraine just so that some editors could get around full protection of War in Donbass. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, he's very thoughtful that way, isn't he? Although it appears full protection was done yesterday, after Russian trucks and armor began rolling into Donbass...still not sure full protection was justified, but that's a different discussion. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've already requested that the protection be removed at the protector's talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete and merge with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. It's redundant. Mondolkiri1 — talk 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is almost exclusively about the invasion of Crimea. The invasion of Crimea and the current invasion in Eastern Ukraine, while still being part of the larger conflict, and two completely separate military operations in the larger conflict. Merging them would make no more sense than to merge articles of random unrelated battles in WW2. Thue ( talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That's absurd. The only reason most of the content is about Crimea is because, up-until-now, there wasn't any definitive proof of Russian intervention in Donbass. Now there is. Please read the deletion discussion for that article here, where consensus established that that article should be expanded to deal with Donbass, and that it wasn't just about Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge with War in Donbass, move both to Russo-Ukrainian War. That IMHO would be the cleanest way to do it and title a whole situation (as war isn't in Dobnass area alone any more). SkywalkerPL ( talk) 18:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The issue here is that there should be an article about the donbas conflict, that would take it off scope into a broad article. This should be the broad russia v. ukraine article, not about separatism. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

There is. It's called War in Donbass. I completely agree the article lends far too much credence to the Kremlin's disingenuous claims not to be involved with the separatists it obviously sponsors, but that's no justification for a POV fork. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 18:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The War in Donbass up to now was between mostly internal rebels, with mostly logistic support by Russia. The current invasion is a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. While of course related, they are arguably separate events. Thue ( talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep clearly ( to me and NATO at least) the war is entering a new phase, with overt participation by Russia, and the new phase seems distinct enough that it makes sense for it to have its own article. Thue ( talk) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Already exists! This article already EXISTS. Please see 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Please see the recent AFD there. RGloucester — ☎ 19:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Which almost exclusively talks about the Crimea invasion, which was a completely seperate military operation. It makes perfect sense to have an article for each separate military operation. Thue ( talk) 19:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That's absurd. The only reason most of the content is about Crimea is because, up-until-now, there wasn't any definitive proof of Russian intervention in Donbass. Now there is. Please read the recent deletion discussion for that article here, where consensus established that that article should be expanded to deal with Donbass, and that it wasn't just about Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The argument here is that the current Russian invasion is a separate military action, and therefore deserving of its own article. Thue ( talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete-there is no proof or evidence of any Russian invasion and Wikipedia shouldn't be used for propaganda purposes.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

You're taking the wrong angle here. Please don't shoot this discussion in the foot. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• This is utter madness. Absurdity incarnate. I must count forks. I MUST. AHHHH! Will there every be any organisation in this confounded encyclopaedia? Any common sense? RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • IMO perfectly valid arguments have been presented as to why this newest invasion is a separate military operation, though you seem to conflate it with the quite different invasion of Crimea. It makes perfect sense to have an article for a seperate military operation, perfectly organized. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article is misnamed given its contents (being about Crimea), and should be merged with 2014 Crimean crisis. Thue ( talk) 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

You're driving me mad. MAD! I wanted to rename that article, and I wanted to merge it. Read the discussion. However, consensus was AGAINST IT! AGAINST IT! I fought for ages to do what you just said. Now I accept the consensus for what it was. That consensus said that that article was SEPARATE form 2014 Crimean crisis and that it dealt with DONBASS and not just CRIMEA. THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED! PLEASE follow the CONSENSUS established merely a week or so ago. This article is thus a FORK. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I honestly understand your frustration. But just because one thing went wrong we shouldn't make another thing go wrong. Sometimes we have to go with the second best. The first best in this situation would be to cut a bunch of stuff (which I've began doing) from the "Intervention" article, merge what is relevant to Crimea to the Crimea article and then combine the parts left over in the "Intervention" article with this present article. And then we can argue about whether the name should be "Intervention" or "Invasion" or "Russo-Ukrainian War". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That's a reasonable proposal, but implementing it would be difficult. It also wouldn't gain consensus, as far as I can see, given the recent deletion review and deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Without reading all discussion from weeks ago, the current Russian invasion have only occured in the last few days. For you to say that the current invasion doesn't deserve its own article as a new development because of obviously obsolete consensus from a few weeks ago is then quite deranged, I agree. Thue ( talk) 20:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete and merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. This is a POV fork of events that are already covered. - Hoplon ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Where exactly are they covered? There *might* be some other article where they *might* be covered or perhaps *should* be covered, but there is no other articles where these events actually *are* covered. And what's the POV? It's all reliably sourced. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• • 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is almost exclusively about the invasion of Crimea. The invasion of Crimea and the current invasion in Eastern Ukraine, while still being part of the larger conflict, and two completely separate military operations in the larger conflict. Merging them would make no more sense than to merge articles of random unrelated battles in WW2. Thue ( talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It is not about Crimea. IT IS NOT ABOUT CRIMEA. This was drummed into my head ten-thousand times. Drummed. Please stop spewing falsities. Do you see "Crimea" in the title? No? That's because it is about "Ukraine", not Crimea. There were move attempts to move it to "in Crimea", but these were opposed. There was a recent deletion discussion to merge it, but consensus said that it was not about Crimea. It was about Ukraine. If you can't read, it is not my fault. I will not stand for this nonsense. I will fight it until the bitter end. RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

RGloucester, I'm completely on your side here -- but chill out, man. Getting worked up and using ALL CAPS isn't helping anything and it just makes you (and by extension the other !merge voters) look unreasonable. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

As I have said to you many times now, the current Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) is about a specific notable subpart of the Russian invasion, deserving its own article. Which did not exist when those discussions happened. Bringing up consensus from before these event happened is still absurd, since whatever consensus was reached is self-evidently to non-mad people no applicable. Thue ( talk) 20:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm just tired of playing games, that's all. I've been playing them here for months, and I have no interest in playing them further. It is almost as if any effort to work on these articles is pointless, because the result is just a tragedy of organisation. A disaster. I was one of the most vehement supporters of merging the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article (from its inception), and previously I was in favour of a title change to "in Crimea". These were vehemently opposed, repeatedly. So I accepted the establishment of that article with a scope of "Ukraine" on the whole, as consensus dictated. I gave up on the deletion review. Now, of course, we're back to square one. Apparently the article is "only about Crimea" now, despite my being told repeatedly that it was not "just about Crimea", and despite that being part of the closure of the deletion discussion. Now we have forks all over the place, a mess that makes no sense. And there is no way to resolve it. I'm tired of this disaster. I've been trying to keep forks under control, but it is quite clear that the battle is lost and pointless. As far as you are concerned, Thue, you are acting dense. It isn't absurd at all. "Military intervention" and "invasion" mean the same thing. Crimea was invaded too. The title of that article is "in Ukraine". In fact, the deletion discussion closure specifically said that the scope of the article should expand with "current events". Please at least read it before spewing utter tosh. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

You are playing games right now, ignoring arguments left and right to fit into your narrative of a victim. Thue ( talk) 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to play your baiting game, so feel free walk away from this "discussion". RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge to War in Donbass. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Deletion discussions are not a vote. You need to provide a policy based argument. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok, how about this - Its part of the already existing article War in Donbass, thus making it a fork article, and a POV one at that. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Two problems with that. First, this content is not in that article. This article is specifically about the Russian participation in the war, while the other article is mostly about separatists fighting government forces. There's of course some topical overlap, but that just means these are related. Not the same. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Your opinion. EkoGraf ( talk) 09:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yeah, you know, the problem with your response is that it can be used as a riposte to anything but it never means anything. The earth is round. Your opinion. 2+2=4. That's, like, just our opinion, man. Man has walked on the moon. That's only an opinion dude. There are whales in the ocean. But that's just an opinion. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. In your opinion! Jimbo Wales is an actual person. In my opinion he is a figment of our collective imagination and my opinion is just as valid as your opinion. At least one thing is true. An opinion, everything could be false, which means that the claim that everything is false is... anyway, it's just your opinion.  Volunteer Marek  06:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - it is an obvious POV fork with an OR title. Any valid content that is there should be in War in Donbass. Articles should be written after the events they purport to detail have actually happened, and after neutral sources have written about those events. A general comment: I've intentionally avoided looking at the Ukraine-related articles until now, but they are much worse than I could have imagined. Has nothing been learned after the Syrian civil war where openly unapologetic pov editing skewed articles into being blatant propaganda pieces? Surely something can be done to stop Wikipedia being continually hijacked in this way. Or must all Wikipedia articles about current events be intrinsically untrustworthy and unreadable? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

How can it be "an OR title" when it's taken directly from reliable sources. And again, what's POV about? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The first 23 of the sources have nothing to do with the subject of the article, the rest (setting aside that many are low-grade) have been cherry-picked to produce content for an article that has no reason to exist. If some day the fantasy of thousands of Russian tanks thundering across the Ukraine comes true - maybe then an article with this title can be justified. But not now. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

So your problem apparently is that the article doesn't harmonize with the Russian claims? The same Russia that claimed it did not invade Crimea, until they were disstributing medals to its soldiers for the invasion of Crimea? Russia has demonstrated again and again that it will lie obviously and shamelessly, but that should not stop Wikipedia from making an article about this event based on independent sources, no more than Bagdad Bob stops us from having an article on the invasion of Iraq. Thue ( talk) 21:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The first 23 of the sources have nothing to do with the subject of the article - ga.. ga... what????!!??? Are you sure you're at the right discussion? Or is this meant to be humorous?

the rest (setting aside that many are low-grade) have been cherry-picked to produce content for an article that has no reason to exist. - Well, there are 42 references in the article. Subtracting the 23 you insanely claim have "nothing to do with the subject" gives 19. So that's nineteen sources which were "cherry picked". Probably from something called "international newspapers" and "reliable sources". How in the monkey's hair can one "cherry pick" 19 different sources, all of them reliable and all of them saying more or less the same thing? Make sense please.

Oh yeah, and the false assertion that these are "low-grade" sources is more bunkum. These are all high quality sources (though yeah, ref info needs to be filled in). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Volunteer Marek has substantially changed 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine in the past hours, removing large swathes of information, including the section about Eastern Ukraine. Regardless of my own opinion about whether that information is ultimately worth keeping, I feel that this removal is inappropriate during this ongoing discussion, and misleading. That article did cover the events outside Crimea until it was removed today. RGloucester — ☎ 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

If only the rest of it could be merged into 2014 Crimean crisis and that overstuffed monstrosity converted into an umbrella page covering Russian actions and interference in post-Maidan Ukraine. Alas. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I would support exactly that. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've mostly removed "Timelines" which are replicated in other articles. And some other essentially off-topic stuff. I don't think I've removed much about events outside of Crimea - aside from stuff about Transnitria (!), some "commentary" and other off topic stuff. I didn't remove much about events outside of Crimea simply because there *wasn't* much in the article about events outside of Crimea (aside from the Timeline) - those who make that argument have a point. I support Kudzu1's proposal above. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Mr Marek, weeks ago at the deletion discussion you said that that article covered "a different aspect of the conflict than Crimean crisis". The so-called "timeline" was very large. I wanted to merge it ages ago, but consensus was against it, and so were you. Please don't be disingenuous here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

There's a difference between the scope of the title and the scope of the actual text. The title itself clearly covers aspects of the conflict other than Crimea. Unfortunately, the text, didn't. Trying to fix that now. Also, a weeks ago, there was no outright invasion yet. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

If you are going to fix it, I will help, and I agree with your current edits to that page. However, I maintain my position that these two articles cannot exist parallel. We need to choose one or the other. The easiest thing to do is move the content here to there, and then deal with a potential name change. I say that because that article has a long edit history, and because the existing article should be favoured. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The thing is, the present article (invasion) will be much easier to work with and make into a good article than the other one (intervention). For the time being, until both article do *actually* cover the same thing I think it's best to have both. If I see that either one is good enough for the topic at hand, I will happily agree with you. As it stands right now, the "intervention" article is still mostly about Crimea (though it shouldn't be), the War in Donbass article is mostly about pro-Russian separatists vs pro-government forces, and this article is primarily about Russian troops entering and invading Ukraine. I don't know, we have an article for German invasion of Belgium even though there's also obviously an article for World War I. I want to see the actual work/article first. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, because perhaps the above comment was a bit ramblin' - if you want to start mergin' then start mergin' (though not deletin') and if it works, great. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

(I should also add that I think it makes more sense to merge stuff *from* the "intervention" article to this new one, rather than vice versa). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

See, the burden of labour isn't on me. It is on those who create a content fork. That's unacceptable in every respect. One way or another, this needs to be resolved. I don't care how. But one of these articles needs to disappear so that we don't have a forking situation. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Opinion withdrawn: Keep as a new article covering the phase of the conflict in eastern Ukraine in which Russian armed forces have openly invaded Ukraine in large organized columns, rather than the earlier provision of individual Russian soldiers "on leave," weapons, and only small groups of Russian soldiers acting as part of the regular Russian chain of command. Alternatively, rename the War in Donbass article to reflect the current nature of the conflict by calling it "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" and merging it with the article covering the earlier phase of the invasion in which Russia seized and annexed Crimea.-- Dperrella ( talk) 22:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The peanut gallery has arrived, it seems. RGloucester — ☎ 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

RGloucester, I'm sorry, while I really appreciate your efforts at bringing consistency and rationality to these articles and was actually considering altering or deleting that post, I don't see how your comment is remotely productive. Am I, ignorant lurker that I so obviously am, mistaken about the purpose of this discussion? I thought it was for users to express their views on whether the article should be deleted. What did I get wrong and how does your rudeness help me do better next time?-- Dperrella ( talk) 23:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Did I misunderstand "All input is welcome" did you forget that "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive" or both? Please don't take out your frustration on us little people. -- Dperrella ( talk) 23:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC) (aka the "peanut gallery" - I wish I could get that as a user name) reply

Oh, I mean no offence at all. This place tends to harden one's heart and make one rude, that's all! RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

All input is welcome but some input is more welcome than others. Input by people who make accounts just to vote in AfDs is never going to be particularly welcome. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 23:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I certainly don't expect my input to be as welcome as RGloucester's. I have seen and respect his work in rationally resolving various conflicts in many Wikipedia articles. However, my account, while very lightly used, is not brand-new and it was not created to participate in AfD debates, so I probably don't deserve the special "welcome" reserved for people who create accounts solely for that purpose. Yours from the peanut gallery, Dperrella ( talk) 23:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Returning to the original point, RGloucester is basically right that my post was not a good one. I had not fully read all the earlier discussion and my post was intended as essentially a "vote" but was not a fully informed vote. Essentially, I agree with you about combining articles, but I initially wanted to keep this new one because of my frustration with the names of the current Russian Intervention and War in Donbass articles. I think the "Intervention" name has always had and the "War in Donbass" name has now developed the appearance of an effort to avoid being judgmental by compromising between reality and those who deny it. The military seizure of Crimea was an invasion by any definition of the term that I'm aware of and current events in eastern Ukraine also pretty clearly constitute an invasion and shed a lot of light on the prior denials that the conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions has always been a Russian-controlled and instigated military venture. I would support an umbrella article covering all events from the invasion of Crimea to the invasion of eastern Ukraine under a title similar to "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" with links to articles covering the Crimean invasion and annexation, the pro-Russian campaign by irregular forces, and the current invasion by organized columns from the regular Russian army. I could also support an umbrella article under a title like "Crisis in Ukraine 2013-" that covered the Maidan protests and subsequent events. The name "War in Donbass" sticks in my craw because it suggests an internal/civil war, which has never been true and gives recognition to Donbass as an entity distinct from the two Ukrainian regions that make it up. However, I admit that I lack the knowledge of the region to know to what extent those two regions have historically been joined more closely than to other Ukrainian regions. If there is a strong historical basis for referring to these two regions as Donbass, that part of my difficulty with the name is misguided. However, I would still think that a title such as "Russian Intervention in and Invasion of Donbass" would be at least as neutral as "War in Donbass." This has always been a cross-border war. As I am not qualified to merge any of these articles, let alone take on the Herculean task of combining and reorganizing several of them, I don't feel qualified to have a strong opinion which is better, so I will withdraw my "vote." Should I delete my original comment and everything after it now? With affection from the Peanut Gallery Dperrella ( talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

"War in Donbass" does not imply a civil war. In fact, it was chosen to avoid calling the conflict either a proxy war or a civil war, as these were POV assertions. It merely says "war" in a certain region, namely Donbass. This is neutral, and a statement of fact. There is "war" in the "Donbass" region. Donbass as a region is a quite traditional designation, and many Ukrainian institutions carry the name "Donbass", such as the Donbas National Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture and the Donbass Arena. Regardless, I too would like to see an umbrella article, as do you, but I don't think this should be accomplished through forking. Cleaning-up and expanding 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine seems like the best option, with a potential rename in the works after that work is done. I think a "2013–2014 crisis article" would essentially be WP:OR, however. RGloucester — ☎ 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree with almost everything you say and appreciate the time you have taken to respond. I think you are on the right track about what needs to be done with these articles. But I can't completely agree about the connotation of "War in Donbass" title. It certainly doesn't define the war as a civil war, but it does state that the war is "in" Donbass, which suggests - at least to me - that it is contained there. When the United States invaded Afghanistan, everyone rightly called it a U.S. invasion. Much of the early fighting was done by Northern Alliance and other Afghan fighters with assistance from U.S. air power and small numbers of special forces, but it was still referred to as the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, not the "War in Afghanistan (that some U.S. soldiers may have had something to do with)." I'm not saying that the name "War in Donbass" is totally unacceptable in reference to the insurgent/proxy phase of the conflict in Donbass, but it is inapplicable to the current phase and, I personally believe that subsequent events make clear that the proxy/insurgent phase was just a step in the Russian invasion that started in Crimea and has now reached an open phase in eastern Ukraine. I personally think that the entire pro-Russian and Russian-directed campaign against government forces in eastern Ukraine would more accurately be referred to as part of the "Invasion," but I can see that it is possible that some reasonable minds might disagree in good faith. Given the current evidence of Russian involvement, I would think that an appropriate title for the article discussing the proxy/insurgent phase of the conflict would be "Russian-Supported Insurgency in Eastern Ukraine" (or Donbass). It is objectively accurate and more informative than "War in Donbass" which tells you nothing about who was fighting there and, as mentioned, I still thing that the "War in" title contains some connotation that the war was contained within the borders of that region, which it wasn't. I meant everything I've said about respecting the work you do and I'm confident that with your help a reasonable consensus will be reached. The Peanut Gallery 00:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperrella ( talk • contribs)

• Merge with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and convert to a redirect page to the same, for all of the reasons outlined. But keep as a redirect page, rather than delete, in case Russia later moves to fully invade (with the intent to conquer the entire country) down the road at which point a fuller (separate) article with this title would be needed. -- IJBall ( talk) 05:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as it is the most logical target article for this title and the content here is clearly relevant there even if the intervention is only alleged at this point.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep as both notable WP:GNG and well-sourced, it would be premature to delete this article at this time. Events are obviously unfolding rapidly, and the article will evolve in the coming days/weeks. While it may be appropriate to merge the military intervention article and the invasion article at some future time, it seems premature to do that at this time as well, simply because the fairly light involvement of Russian troops in the unrest in easter Ukraine since about March 2014, and the movement of a column of tanks into Ukraine (this article: "invasion") seem to be quite different phases of the military operation by Russia. N2e ( talk) 11:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Er, was the invasion of Crimea "light"? They didn't give out the medal for nothing. Once again, I want to make clear the "military intervention" and "invasion" are synonyms. One of them is a euphemism, namely "military intervention". That means these articles have the exact same scope, meaning that this is fork. Regardless of whether this is a "new phase", the present title of the article doesn't indicate that. It just indicates "invasion in Ukraine in 2014 in general", which necessarily duplicates 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 13:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It's a new stage of war when "pro-Russian insurgents" clearly were substituted by Russian regular army forces. NickSt ( talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That's doesn't change the fact that we already have a long-standing article on this matter with a title that means exactly the same thing: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That article about March-April 2014 events must be renamed to 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea. NickSt ( talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Just because it appears that there is confusion among the "keep" crowd as to why this article is a problem, let me provide dictionary definitions:
  • "Military intervention": The deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy.
  • "Invasion": the act of invading with armed forces.

As one can see, these two mean EXACTLY the same thing. One is merely a euphemism, namely "military intervention". These two "articles" have exactly the same scope: "Russian military forces entering Ukraine in 2014". RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not so sure. An "invasion" is a type of "military intervention". But so are, say, airstrikes, which are not an "invasion". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Although they may be synonyms according to some definitions, an "intervention" to a layperson sounds like 1) there are few to no deaths during the intervention, which I guess could be true in the Crimean context, and, more importantly, 2) that the "intervening" country was intervening for a purpose other than holding on to that land. Technically, if you believe Russia, I guess one could argue that Russia intervened in Crimea to allow the "referendum" to happen and then Crimea asked to join Russia. I disagree with that interpretation of what happened, but either way...that is clearly NOT what is happening here. For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that the articles "Russian intervention in Ukraine" and "Russian invasion of Ukraine" should be separate. If merged, the title should be "Russian invasion of Ukraine." When there is a hot war going on with Russian soldiers on the ground with the intent of taking land away from Ukraine and it being under de facto control of Russia (if not officially part of Russia, that is not an intervention. The War in Donbass refers to the separatism in Donbass, but the Invasion of Ukraine also includes related events outside of Donbass, such reports of Russia building up forces in Crimea on border of Kherson region, as well as near Chernigiv, Kharkiv, etc. This article, unlike any other articles before it, deals with the traditional territorial invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Anything else is like calling the invasion of Poland a military intervention. The article "Military intervention in Ukraine" talks about Russia intervention in the form of sending arms and "volunteers." When it started sending troops, it became an invasion, and thus the conflict entered a new phase, and deserves a separate article dealing with aspects relating to Russia's introduction of Russian troops into Ukraine. First time posting so go easy guys (and girls). Vysotsky2 ( talk) 18:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

If you have a problem with the title of that article, the correct approach is to request to rename it. To go around that article and create a fork that's title means the same thing with different connotations is against policy. Are you calling the invasion of Crimea less an invasion than this one? The fact remains that these words are synonyms, and have the exact same scope. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I am saying that there is some disagreement on whether the invasion of Crimea qualified as an "invasion" in the traditional sense of the word. However, based on the latest developments, Russia's actions are an invasion in every respect. As such, there must be a new article devoted to the traditional invasion of mainland Ukraine by Russia. Yes, I believe that what happened in Crimea was an invasion, but it doesn't matter what I think. I can understand people who call it a military invention because of the reasons mentioned above, namely that it was largely peaceful and there was a so-called referendum to join Russia. More importantly, this article deserves to be separate because these events are distinct. Russia annexes Crimea. Now, it is sending troops into areas that have been peaceful and void of armed separatist activity for months, which can only be labeled as an invasion. This article is different from any other article because it focuses on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It cannot be limited to Crimea, Donbass, or even Eastern Ukraine because there are related events in other Oblasts, including Russia's military build-up around other Oblasts. Because every article primarily paints this conflict as an internal conflict in Ukraine or as pertaining only to Crimea, when Russian troops entered mainland Ukraine, those articles were no longer could adequately portray the events that transpired in the last couple of weeks. One more thought: I think this conflict will be remember in separate instances, because in reality they were distinct: Russia invades/annexes/intervenes in Crimea, pro-Russian uprising in East Ukraine, War in Donbass, and, now, the Russian invasion of main Ukraine. You cannot possibly to hope to adequately portray these four distinct events in one Wikipedia article without giving undue weight to some events, which will invariably happen. This is a complex conflict and the fact that it is happening in a relatively short period of time should not force us to pigeonhole it into one article under one boilerplate name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That's fine, but the scope of this article at present doesn't say anything about the fact that it is different from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. You can do Russian invasion of Donbass (August 2014), Russian invasion of Ukraine (August 2014) or something similar. Then you could change the other article around. Regardless, that's not what's happening here. Here we have parallel articles with the exact same scope. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete (no crucial proof of that alleged invasion, only speculations) or at least Merge into 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.-- HC PUNXKID 19:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Please stop trolling this page as you have others in the past. The invasion isn't up for debate, just the content fork/merge issue. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 22:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree with RGloucester in some ways, we already have this article located in Russian military intervention in Ukraine, so technically it would be considered a WP:FORK. However, the recent developments have wide press coverage.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 03:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No one disagrees with the "amount of press coverage" or the importance of the events. I only disagree with the way this was established. War in Donbass was fully protected at the time, and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was in a sorry state that no one could condone. Therefore, to go around all that trouble, a fork was created here. That's the definition of PoV fork. One shouldn't go around discussions (merger/deletion/renaming) just to advance one's point-of-view, or to right the great wrong of the inability to update an article due to full protection. One should work within the existing articles, work with editors to solve problems. Now we have two articles with the exact same scope, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and this article, along with another that has severe overlap, War in Donbass. The basis for this "article" (which started at the title Russo-Ukrainian War) is flawed, in that tries to overwrite everything that happened previously and claim that "the Russo-Ukrainian war became a fact". Regardless of anything else, this is not a "new war" separate from the Donbass one. Whilst I do now agree with having a separate article for Russian intervention/invasion whatever, there should only be one. The existing article should be it, because many previous and even recent discussions determined that that article was meant to serve the same purpose as this one. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't understand how this article is the same scope as War in Donbass or Russian Intervention in Ukraine. There is relevant content that can be added here, that cannot be added anywhere else. For example, there are credible reports of Transinistria mobilizing and Russian troops on border of Chernigiv Oblast. Geographically, the scope of this article is and will be outside Donbass and Eastern Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That's in the scope of the existing 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and so it can go there. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete (no proof of that alleged invasion, only speculations) Vitez Kojo — User talk:Vitez Kojo 21:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Can we please not take into account shill / sockpuppet trolling accounts like this ? -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 22:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

This user has called "trolls" others on this page, purely for expressing a different opinion. Can we please ignore such people, at least on Wikipedia? They clearly have a propaganda agenda. Viktor5 ( talk) 09:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

...says another likely sockpuppet account with only two edits to this particular username. You know, if you're only gonna make two edits to Wikipedia with an account, it's pretty damn obvious that you're a sockpuppet if both of them happen to be to an AfD.  Volunteer Marek  06:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Here are just two pages I created back in 2006: [10] and [11] Care to take your words back,  Propagandist ? Viktor5 ( talk) 07:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge - When users insist on creating subpage after subpage for long drawn out current events, as the conflict in Ukraine certainly is, it simply creates confusion and inconvenience. Potential POV issues aside, the right answer to current events is to recognize that Wikipedia is not a news source, and does not to be creating articles on events exactly as they happen. In this case, an article of this sort may very well be needed in the future, but readers would be better served is this does not exist as a standalone until the situation can actually be more clearly evaluated.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 01:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That article already exists. It is called 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. See WP:SPLIT. This article is a mainly content-based split, not a fork. The readable prose of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is about 36 kb and War in Donbass about 118 kb. Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2014) is about 5.3kb. So merging this article into 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine would in principle be doable without violating the WP:SPLIT rule of thumb for length. But official international government reactions ("responses") and mainstream media reports, cited in the article, widely report this as a qualitatively different phase of the conflict - a significant escalation, and literally an "invasion". This seems to me to justify a content-based split. The readable prose content has grown by about 2kb in the 2 days since the article was AfD'd. If RS'd NPOV material continues growing at 1kb/day, then that would make about 36 + 5 + 14 = 55 kb in a fortnight, in which case a split by length would also start to become preferable. There probably should be a discussion about the title, e.g. Russian invasion of mainland Ukraine (2014) might be better as a descriptive title, but that's a requested move, not a deletion procedure. Boud ( talk) 03:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Those "responses" could easily have their own sub-article (as it usually does in most cases), so that would never become a problem (and would be WP:CRYSTAL at this point anyway). This article is a PoV fork. It was created at the title Russo-Ukrainian War to go around consensus and avoid full protection at War in Donbass. We have an article ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine) that covers this topic already. It isn't, as you say, too long, and is longstanding. This title means exactly the same thing as that one, and is meant to cover the same topic. Once again, the only reason this article exists is to push a PoV, and avoid discussion/article protection processes. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I believe that in future the situation may change and this article may become useful. The discussed article should be reworked and either merged with already existing article, or made its subarticle. -- UA Victory ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete All references in this article are to publications by NATO, the Kiev government, and other interested parties in the propaganda war. Moreover, in those referenced articles all the allegations are qualified by phrases like "allegedly", "it is believed", "NATO said", while the Wiki article presents them as facts. Viktor5 ( talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Brand new account with only two edits = sockpuppet. Even the reason given is not policy based.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I showed above that I was on Wikipedia since 2006. The reasons I stated may or may not be policy based, however you interprete the policy, but giving references to only one-sided view of the conflict, tampering citations by removing qualifying expressions, and calling your opponents names is nothing but propaganda, and very primitive at that. Viktor5 ( talk) 07:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Aside from NATO commentary, not a neutral party concerning Russia, the are no sources that state this as fact. As such, this is propaganda and not historical fact. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 02:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Even if any of this was true, which it is not, "POV" is not a reason for deletion. Notability is. Comment does not address Wikipedia guidelines.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

My comments clearly address wiki policy. If an historical article is not based on fact, and has no reliable sources, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 15:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually no. Deletion is not about POV or reliable sources but about notability. Anyway, the article is brimming with reliable sources, so you're just making stuff up, hoping nobody will notice. So even that, irrelevant, objection is false.  Volunteer Marek  17:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

No one is contesting "notability". What is contested is whether this a fork. As we already have an article on this subject matter, this is a fork. Pure and simple. Worse, it is a fork that was created to avoid full protection at War in Donbass, and to avoid having to go through RM processes at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. This flies in the face of all Wikipedia norms. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think this article started as a content fork, but there's some merit in devoting an article to cover the specific Russian military actions themselves, as long as the article is not framed as an alternative take on War in Donbass (of which it is now a subarticle). As updated and improved, I see no reason to delete this article, especially considering the article size issues with War in Donbass and, to a lesser extent, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 03:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is misguided and wrong, and still doesn't address the fact that we have two articles with titles that mean the exact same thing. There are no length issues with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which is only at 5.3kb. There is plenty of space for the minuscule content here at that article, and that is where it belongs. It is a fork, and nothing more. There is nothing improved or updated about this fork. RGloucester — ☎ 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete As RGloucester notes, "the only reason this article exists is to push a PoV". Also, the idea that Russia has invaded Ukraine is an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedea readers. See How can you tell whether Russia has invaded Ukraine? Ukraine is in a civil war, and NATO is on Kiev's side. To quote Ism schism, "Aside from NATO commentary, not a neutral party concerning Russia, the are no sources that state this as fact." Having an article about an event which only NATO claims exists (even Kiev seems to have stopped claiming that there is a Russian invasion, if for no other reason than it being invaded would make it ineligible for IMF loans) is to turn Wikipedia into a outlet for NATO propaganda. – Herzen ( talk) 05:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Again, what you need to do here is to provide a policy based reason for deletion, not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a link to some crazy ass blog. "POV" is actually NOT a reason for deletion, even if it was relevant. It's a reason for improving an article. And my understanding is that even RGloucester has backed off from the claim that the article is a POV fork, just that it could potentially duplicate the coverage of the "Intervention" article.  Volunteer Marek  06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete According to the OSCE there is no evidence of a Russian invasion. [12]-- Dag13 ( talk) 07:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You do realise that the OSCE are only allowed to monitor two official border crossings and are not permitted by the Russians to monitor the remainder of the 75km border under rebel control? -- Nug ( talk) 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

OSCE send teams to Mariupol and Novoazovsk where are reportedly russians soliders. [13]-- Dag13 ( talk) 17:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. This article seems to be about the recent invasion in south eastern Ukraine while the article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine seems to be a broader article that encompasses the military intervention in Crimea as well. The latter article exceeds 100k in size, so this article is an acceptable content fork. -- Nug ( talk) 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is a blatant falsity. It is War in Donbass which exceeds 100k. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is barely at 5k. RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

??? My browser shows 119kB for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. -- Nug ( talk) 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Mine shows ~121kB. War in Donbass is ~336kB. WP:TOOBIG is fairly clear on this. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 03:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't know where you are getting the numbers for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. War in Donbass is not up for discussion here. I've already said that I'm happy to partake in splitting debates for that article. However, this is not a legitimate split. This is a PoV fork. There is no need for WP:HASTEy PoV forking. The guideline is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Kudzu1 and Nug, I've already tried to address this issue above. The point is that there is more than one article in need of restructuring. Trying to salvage the same articles and content as they stand is working backwards. Deconstructing the content then working out what is redundant (bloat) and where forks and splits are logical is the only workable approach. Allowing the self-same content to be replicated because 'we can make it kind of different' is not a strategy but an excuse for child articles and more fork articles to be created so that, dependent on which page a reader lands on, they'll be taken on a POV ride. The only way to handle it is to stop, regroup and tackle information from individual main entries, not a series of replica articles with each interest group getting to tell the story per their WP:COATRACK. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge with the appropiate article or articles. The dust hasn't settled yet, between Russia & Ukraine & so it's best we avoid forking. GoodDay ( talk) 12:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• PS: I've no objection to this article title & wouldn't oppose its usage in a 'merged' article. GoodDay ( talk) 13:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Even if there is presence of Russian military units in Ukraine, this is no invasion, it's a claimed intervention of foreign troops. - ☣ Tourbillon ^A ? 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Not a valid reason for deletion.  Volunteer Marek  15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete As POVFORK Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Per nom (as a POV fork of War in Donbass). -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 15:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to War in Donbass. 23 editor ( talk) 16:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep clearly not POV fork to have an article that says exactly what reliable sources say. Sources confirm that Russia has invaded Ukraine, on several occasions. JOJ ^Hutton 16:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

That's fine, but that's not what the problem is here. The problem is that we already have an article on that subject ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine), and that this particular page was forked only to get around protection at War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

With the organizational problems 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine -- which both you and I !voted in favor of deleting just a few weeks ago -- has historically struggled with, it seems wise to (as I suggested above, as you agreed with at the time) use that article as an umbrella to cover both Russian intervention in Crimea and Donbass. Crimea already has a focus page, 2014 Crimean crisis. This article, as overhauled (quite drastically changed from when you initially nominated for deletion, and much improved, IMO) is the Donbass counterpart to 2014 Crimean crisis. It is no longer a POV fork, which I agree was the original intent of the article. It is a proper subarticle to prevent the level of detail (and, often, subsequent edit-warring) from getting incredibly out of hand on War in Donbass and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, as they have in the past. It covers a specific phase and operation of War in Donbass and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

No. We don't need anymore articles. This remain a POV fork. Our "focus page" is War in Donbass. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (only 5kb now) handles instances of Russian intervention in that conflict. Organisational problems do not warrant forking. Forking must stop. It is destroying this encyclopaedia. We now have five articles that cover the same subject-matter: War in Donbass, Timeline of the War in Donbass, Battle of Novoazovsk, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). This is absolutely absurd. It is essentially a theatre of different people with different ideas creating and editing different articles about the same thing. This must stop. RGloucester — ☎ 19:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The war article is massive and overstuffed with details that really need to be broken out per WP:SPINOFF, including the invasion. The timeline article is a timeline article, which is not suitable for laying out an overview of the campaign, reactions, effects, etc. The battle article is about a specific battle that is only part of the Russian operation in eastern Ukraine. The intervention article predates the Donbass invasion and covers the Crimean events as well, which were a separate operation. The invasion article is appropriate to have per WP:SPINOFF, considering the War in Donbass article is very large and the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article has multiple focuses. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

We do need to work on spinning-off content, doubt. But we already have the appropriate spin-off article for these events: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The fact of the matter is that all of these articles contain different takes on the same exact events. You will be able to read the same events at different articles. This is an absurd situation. RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The intervention page also covers Crimea. It also doesn't contain much information about the specific Russian invasion, but includes a lot of background information that is itself duplicated on War in Donbass. In short, it's a bit of a hash. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

That's not an excuse for creating yet-another screwed-up article. Improve the existing one, don't make a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

What's wrong with the following? Russian military intervention in Ukraine is an overarching article that contains information on the 2014 Crimean crisis, the War in Donbass, Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russian invasion started in August 2014, as described in the article, when Russian forces entered Ukraine and engaged the Ukrainian military. Prior to that, Russia was arming and supporting separatism in the War of Donbass, which according to many was still an internal conflict between separatists and Ukrainian army, even if Russia was seriously involved. When the separatists started losing, Russia decided to invade. All articles have a different scope. 50.153.131.7 ( talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Sorry, forgot to sign. Vysotsky2 ( talk) 22:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

First, I appreciate your feedback and I honestly believe that people like you make Wikipedia a better place, although I disagree with you on this particular issue. With that being said, I was wondering what you about the following addition that I took the liberty to add (hopefully without violating any rules). The Russian Invasion of Ukraine 2014 article's scope is limited to after the introduction of Russian troops in Ukraine. Prior to that, the armed conflict in Donbass was limited to Russia's indirect military involvement, and hence not considered an invasion per se and was limited to geographically to Donbass. The Crimean annexation has its own article, 2014 Crimean crisis. The overarching article about Russian military intervention in post-Euromaidan Ukraine, we have the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The problem with merging War in Donbass with Russian Invasion of Ukraine 2014 is the events were of inherently different character. For example, if U.S. invaded Cuba after the failed Bay of Pigs, we would not merge Bay of Pigs and American Invasion of Cuba into one article because they were distinct events. As such, all of the above events are distinct as well and have different scopes as outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect There is nothing in this article that couldn't be in War in Donbass-- 71.110.129.100 ( talk) 17:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pure POVFORK. Catlemur ( talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:POVFORK, No concrete evidence yet that Russia invaded Ukraine, might want to wait for a declaration of war or something, because it is not in WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep and merge/subsitute into Russo-Ukrainian War. Sending armed militia as an occupying force (supported by regular army units) into an other country is as much an act of war or an invasion as only sending in regular army units into an other country. Russia is the only country in the world that denies their involvment and the cover-up policy used by Russia for hiding their direct participation, is called a clear lie by nearly all country's in the world. Proof of Russia's direct involvment is mountaining and stated by most non-Russian press. Wikipedia as an encyclopadia should not participate in a cover-up of a war.-- Niele ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Please don't be dense. None of this has anything to do with this discussion, and there is no article titled "Russo-Ukrainian War". In fact, that was the original title of the article that is up for discussion here. The problem is that we already have an article on this very situation that you are so keen on, called 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Therefore, this article is merely a duplication of that article. This is called content forking, and is not something that our guidelines smiles upon. We don't want to "cover-up" anything, merely not have thousands of duplicate article on the same subject. RGloucester — ☎ 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your patience and persistence in this matter. On a side note, I'd say the extraordinary claims require multiple reliable sources rule applies here. I follow what the Western press is writing about the war, and you don't see the BBC or NY Times mentioning an invasion, even as something that may or may not have happened. So it's eerie that Wikipedia has an article on his subject, whereas the top reliable sources don't even mention it. – Herzen ( talk) 02:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

you don't see the BBC or NY Times mentioning an invasion, even as something that may or may not have happened. - uh... you're either not really following the press, or you're talking about some other "BBC" or "NY Times": [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. That's just some of BBC. Here's NYT: [19], [20], [21], and basically at that point I'm just bored and tired of refuting blatant misinformation.  Volunteer Marek  05:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Only one of the BBC articles seems to treat an invasion as confirmed, with two of the articles not even being about invasion claims. Instead they are about fairly weak claims of tanks being sent from Russia.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep on spinnin'  Volunteer Marek  06:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Merge If the article is about the brief invasion of Russian tanks, then it is too narrow and doesn't deserve an article. If it is about Russian activities generally,(secret agents and arming of rebels etc.), then it belongs in the War on Donbass 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article. Kingsindian ( talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as POV fork. No confirmation from OSCE observers of any Russian armored units crossing the border. Such allegations can be discussed in other (existing) relevant articles. - Helvetica ( talk) 04:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter whether OSCE confirmed it or not (btw, are there any OSCE independent observers in Ukraine that aren't held as hostages by the separatists?), what matters is whether reliable source say there has been an invasion or not (whether armored or not, also doesn't matter). And they do.  Volunteer Marek  04:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Except, Mr Marek, that doesn't matter at all. What matters is that we already have an article that covers these notable concerns, and that this article is an exercise in subversion. RGloucester — ☎ 05:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@V.M. - Your snark aside, the fact remains that OSCE, which has monitors on the ground - on both sides of the Russia/Ukraine border - has said that they can't confirm allegations of a Russian invasion. See for example here in the Kiev Post (certainly not a pro-Russian source): http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/osce-secretary-general-says-it-is-difficult-to-confirm-presence-of-regular-russian-forces-on-ukrainian-territory-362885.html

You say that "reliable source say there has been an invasion," but they don't. They say that Kiev, NATO have *alleged* that there's been a Russian "invasion," or "incursion," or whatever term they use.

By having a Wikipedia article with the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine," Wikipedia asserts these disputed allegations as fact. This violates NPOV policy. And indeed, this seems the sole purpose of this article. Hence it's a POV-fork. - Helvetica ( talk) 06:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per all arguments above,also there is confirmed news that 1,000 Russian troops have crossed the Border,the conflict has entered a new phase. Alhanuty ( talk) 05:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The "invasion" article will be warranted when Russia really invades Ukraine: about 30000 troops would probably qualify as an invasion, whereas several hundred troops are a military intervention. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:POVFORK. There's already an article about alleged Russian involvement in Ukraine, see: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. -- Tocino 07:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. When that article was at AfD, I voted to delete it because I argued it is a PoV fork from War in Donbass and 2014 Crimean crisis. The users who voted keep argued that it should be kept because 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine talks about both Crimea and Donbass, and there is absolutely no way this info, which is so important, can be merged into these two articles, but should stay in the same article. Now the same users argue that 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is almost exclusively on Crimea, and we need another one on Donbass. May be we should stop creating forks, and concentrate on adding non-POV material in existing articles instead? How many articles on the same topic do we need? Two? Five? Twenty? Just look at their names, the articles with these names should be about exactly the same thing.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• A sterling example of WP:POVFORK designed to promote a certain agenda. Delete or merge with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. I guess the real invasion is to be expected later this autumn. So far we have seen a military intervention. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The Russian military has invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine is at war with Russia. WP:SPADE. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as blatant WP:POVFORK. No amount of shuffling around the content has concealed that fact. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is heavily and reliably sourced. When you make the front page of the world's papers it is not a POVFORK by any stretch. Capitalismojo ( talk) 02:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

We already have an article on that stuff ( 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine). This is just a duplicate with more spin. That's the essence of a PoV fork. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge - Right now, the content seems to belongs on War in Donbass, which in turn split from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. There's no need for a separate page named "Russian invasion" - it's just another turn of events in a topic already covered on the wiki. As the conflict escalates, we can always change "military intervention" to "invasion" a la Turkish invasion of Cyprus and other precedents. -- Katangais ( talk) 02:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge as per WP:POVFORK. There really isn't much to explain that hasn't already been said.-- Franz Brod ( talk) 15:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Suggestion Change this article to "2014 Russian intervention in/invasion of Donbass" & change "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" to "2014 Russian intervention in/invasion of Crimea". Alternatively, merge w/"War in Donbass" or " 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine". Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 23:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Except, as has been established numerous times, that article isn't about Crimea. In fact, more content at that article is about Donbass than Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to an appropriately titled article. Everyking ( talk) 02:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge As a reader, I would find it easier if this article was merged as a subsection under the "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" article, because of the closely related nature of events. I almost missed it as its own separate article, and the past week of developments aren't covered well in "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine"; had I missed this article I wouldn't have been informed on the topic. I don't see any reason why it's not merged... Some comments mentioned size, but the 1k words of content in this article can't significantly affect another article's size. Also, all these articles read like news feeds, which is understandable given the developing nature of events, but this suggests to me there is a lot of room to cut bloat. If articles are too big, I suggest adapting the reference style; a large part of these articles is references. For example, War in Donbass has 18k words of content supported by 15k words of references, while this article has 1k words of content supported by 1.7k words of references. 76.104.163.204 ( talk) 10:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. -- 37.191.201.149 ( talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• I'm going to develop a bit further my opinion expressed earlier. The name of this article, along with its content, doesn't make sense, since Russia already invaded another part of Ukraine (Crimea) in February 2014. Its name, along with the content, suggests that it only invaded it in August, in Donbass. In my opinion the content of this article should be transferred to the previous one, and the other one being possibly renamed as "invasion" instead of "military intervention". Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 23:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep I am not sure I stated my formal position yet. The article has a different scope than the others, both geographically and substantively. It obviously doesn't belong in the Crimean Crisis article because, although related, most people consider them to be different events and many people disagree on whether the annexation of Crimea was an invasion per se. It doesn't belong in the War in Donbass article, because the War in Donbass was limited to Donbass, and most people consider that conflict to be primarily between the separatists/rebels/Russian volunteers and Ukraine. This conflict directly affects the territories outside Donbass, and there is every reason to believe that that will continue to be so. There are reports, for example, of Kharkiv preparing for a siege. Perhaps the biggest question is whether this article has the same scope as Russian military intervention in Ukraine. But, it is important to keep in mind that this conflict is, as far as I know, unlike any other because of the distinct phases it is being fought in. The annexation of Crimea, the War in Donbass, and now the formal Russian invasion of Ukraine are really different events, despite happening in a relatively short span of time. As such, there needs to be a unifying article that can links all of these articles in a coherent way. That article is Russian military invention in Ukraine because it is broadly worded enough to encompass the annexation of Crimea, the War in Donbass, and the formal Russian invasion of Ukraine by virtue of Russian regular troops being in Ukraine. I see no other way to organize these articles. Vysotsky2 ( talk) 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Firstly, you already voiced your "keep" once before. Secondly, I cannot comprehend your remarks here. There has been nothing outside of the Donbass at this point in time, so that's a bunch of WP:CRYSTAL BOLLOCKS. Regardless, that's not the issue here, as those who seek a merger have designated 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as the target, which could theoretically include non-Donbass events if they were to occur. That's inappropriate to discuss, as it is WP:CRYSTAL, but it makes plain that whatever concerns you have are not warranted. RGloucester — ☎ 04:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is OK to keep separately a sub-article about the initial invasion (for example 2003 invasion of Iraq) and actual war (between Russia and Ukraine covered in 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine). My very best wishes ( talk) 14:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Er, that doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Merge - This article should be merged with the war in donbass or should be left as a theatre in the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weegee12 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge into 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. This isn't really a job for AfD. -- Impsswoon ( talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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 redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

A2204 road

A2204 road (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why exactly is this unremarkable very short (200m? something like that) road notable. Because it has an A-number? WP:GEOROAD seems to indicate that it should meet the standard notability requirements of multiple published secondary sources (with some significant coverage), and I wasn't able to find these. Fram ( talk) 15:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Unless something notable happened here- I'm seeing no point to this article. .... – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme per Altenmann - Seems more logical to redirect than deleting. (Had I been aware the A roads etc article existed I would've voted Redirect anyway). – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge/redirect into the appropriate road list, A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. -No.Altenmann >t 15:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I'm not seeing notability. Cpuser20 ( talk) 15:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme - Article gives no reason for notability, no sources given. Article doesn't contain very much info, but if there is anything to merge sure. -- Taketa ( talk) 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as per others. FM [  talk to me |  show contributions ]  18:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#Four digit roads, as for the overwhelming majority of other roads in that section of the list. Only significant coverage I could find was on a wiki for road enthusiasts, which is clearly not a reliable source. TfL factsheet for Greenwich is a reliable source, but coverage consists of "A2204 Woolwich Ferry Approach (220 m)" so is clearly not significant. Qwfp ( talk) 08:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Josh Hill (entrepreneur)

Josh Hill (entrepreneur) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the few sources show any signs of notability. He may be a young and up-coming CEO but nothing shows that he is notable in Wikipedia terms yet. May be just too soon. Fails WP:BIO   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   14:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. No indications of notability. Started a few non-notable companies. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 14:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not only not notable, created by a WP:SPA. Note that there is also an article for his company, Cinevid which is up for Speedy Deletion. LaMona ( talk) 15:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if all of the following are true: - It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. - It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." It is our belief that the latter option is met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techspace41 ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Techspace41: You have misunderstood the criterion, which states "A topic is presumed to merit inclusion if all of the following are met" (emphasis added). Meeting any single criterion (i.e. in your case, not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy) is not sufficient. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - If cinevid gains more popularity, the article can be recreated, but as of now, I don't see the notability. Cpuser20 ( talk) 15:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG - The subject lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. The article gives only a single secondary source, google search was unsuccesfull. -- Taketa ( talk) 18:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Fails general notability for now. CesareAngelotti ( talk) 18:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Got a writeup by his local newspaper, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources.   SmileBlueJay97   talk  08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Maria Johansson

Maria Johansson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer. The article is basically a me too daughter follows father into boxing. Father was notable boxer but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I think she could have a mention on Ingemar's page, but I don't think she meets notability requirements. Cpuser20 ( talk) 15:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per WP:NBOX - As stated above, notability is not inherited. She had a single fight broadcast national on a single channel in the US, and one single other fight. This fails WP:NBOX. I miss significant coverage in secundary sources, per WP:GNG. The article gives a single source. A google search was difficult due to a famous namesake. I found a single mention of a few lines in a book [22]. -- Taketa ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: - Please move Maria Johansson (actress) if the decision is to delete. -- Taketa ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete-Yes not inherited. (also I do agree that the actress needs to be moved to this page if it is indeed to be deleted-just don't have in the talk page that it was discussed to be deleted as its not the same one) Wgolf ( talk) 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete A pro fighter with 2 fights (both losses) is not notable. Article was created simply because of her father. Papaursa ( talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above and WP:NBOX.   SmileBlueJay97   talk  09:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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 speedy delete. Clear A9 speedy deletion. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 06:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Crash This Party

Crash This Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The song fails all criteria at WP:NSONG. It has not been the subject of extensive coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, it did not chart, and it did not win any significant awards. Contested prod. WWGB ( talk) 13:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 13:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The song has instead contribution to the music industry, please destroy the work and pages. There are many albums and songs useless on wikipedia. Please delete these — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndCx ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per WP:A9. — teb728 t c 21:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete (A9) since the artist's page has been deleted and there is no apparent significance/importance to this song; just YouTube/social media links.  Gongshow    talk 00:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per WP:A9  SmileBlueJay97   talk  09:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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 redirect - boldly closing after collegial discussion and equally bold redirect made any further discussion moot ( non-admin closure). St★lwart ¹¹¹ 23:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Representative of Montserrat, London

Representative of Montserrat, London (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. this does not even have embassy or consulate status. And it is only an office within the building pictured not the whole building. Also nominating:

• Representative of Saint Helena, London

LibStar ( talk) 12:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Neither the organization nor the building is notable.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 10:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Please make an account to vote. -- RaviC ( talk) 13:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

anon IP voting is permitted, LibStar ( talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete both - neither is a notable building, institution or organisation given that neither meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep I believe the official government of a British overseas territory is notable. Other non-sovereign representations, such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office have articles here. I don't see why this should be an exception. -- RaviC ( talk) 13:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

And... what? Nobody (nobody at all) is suggesting the government of that territory isn't notable. What has been suggested is that a nondescript office representing that Government in another country isn't inherently notable. Like everything else, it needs to meet WP:GNG and in this case doesn't. Did you even read the article? St★lwart ¹¹¹ 22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Question. Could the deletion-nominator please remind us of an alternative treatment possible, which was the result implemented in several similar AFDs. I have seen other AFDs about London embassies, and have seen several of them conclude with move or redirect to some obvious target, but I forget what that is. Perhaps there is a standard type of article on the nation-to-nation relationship, which has not always been created, but is obviously a keeper, and this should be moved/redirected to that. It seems inefficient for new AFD editors to have to consider this kind of issue again and again, without guidance. I'm sorry I can't remember the specifics just now. -- do ncr am 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or merge to the standard type of article that has resolved many similar London embassy AFDs. -- do ncr am 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The alternative to a couple of the others was that I created bilateral relations articles and they were redirected there. In other cases, others have created them. I created Saint Kitts and Nevis–United Kingdom relations and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations as examples. I was frustrated that articles for non-notable embassies had been created while articles about notable relations remained redlinks. I don't support keeping these unless those articles are created - feel free to do so and I'll happily support your suggestion. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 22:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Okay then with this AFD, move the article to Montserrat-United Kingdom relations or any other okay name for the bilateral relations and develop a little bit, e.g. perhaps from this google book about Montserrat and England dynamics of culture and this source about Montserrat and United Kingdom relations, including how Montserrat is some type of overseas territory of the United Kingdom and how the U.K. considers its relations, in 2002, and I assume lots more sources from:

• Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

and then the embassy article would be a redirect to that and the embassy could be mentioned, or not. If/when the embassy is itself found to be more individually notable, say for occupying some historic building or having some important event there, then re-develop the redirect into a separate article. This is best way to resolve the AFD easily, without deleting contribution(s), without offending contributor(s), and leading to more productive development. IMHO the AFD is not needed; it would have been possible to simply make the move and develop a bit, without imposing costs of AFD (possible offense to contributors, use/waste of AFD editors' attention, etc.). Hope this helps. -- do ncr am 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

That's fine and I'd be happy with that solution once that article is created. So many of these ended as no consensus because they deserved to be deleted but nobody could be bothered to create the articles to redirect them to. I created a couple of them and still the AFDs ended as no consensus because people couldn't even be bothered contributing to the discussion, even when pinged to reconsider previous opinions. I'll support a redirection/merger once that target article exists. Until then, this doesn't meet our inclusion criteria and should be deleted as no genuine alternative to deletion exists. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay, moved to Montserrat-United Kingdom relations, and edited partway towards being on revised topic name. Keeps photo of the embassy. I think this AFD can be closed keep / redirected. -- do ncr am 21:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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 speedy delete per G12. At least one official report from the department ( [23]) predates this article, with content clearly copied and pasted. See [24] (sorry, admin only). — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Huntington Police Department (West Virginia)

Huntington Police Department (West Virginia) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pure advertisement, taken straight from the Police Dept website - include many copyright violations. Nothing anywhere in this article suggests any form of notability. Continually named non-notable people, which without references makes it into a wp:BLP nightmare. There are ZERO reliable sources in use. the panda ₯’ 11:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 11:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 11:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Linda Proud

Linda Proud (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find enough sources to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR - her novels are self-published by Godstow Press owned by her and her husband. Dougweller ( talk) 10:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete No significant third-party sources, only blog posts. The press is a vanity press for her work (and a few others), as per [25]. This article is mainly an advertisement for her works. LaMona ( talk) 15:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I didn't find anything either to suggest she meets WP:GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The situation is well analysed in the nomination and by LaMona. I have had a good look myself and also cannot stand up compliance with WP:BIO. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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 speedy delete by NawlinWiki under G11. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Intria Items

Intria Items (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subsidiary of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. No sources, and Google News gives exactly /zero/ hits, which is truly remarkable. Revent ^talk 10:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 10:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. postdlf ( talk) 16:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

100 Players who shook the Kop

100 Players who shook the Kop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this should be in the encyclopaedia. It is uncited and possibly NN NickGibson3900 ^{Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions} 09:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Copy & paste list from a non-notable survey. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Players Who Shook The Kop from 2008 (note slightly different capitalisation). After that the article was re-created and G4'ed several times.... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unsourced fancruft, no indication of notability The Banner  talk 18:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - As WP:LISTCRUFT. Fenix down ( talk) 08:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as above, non-notable, save it for a fan site. Giant Snowman 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Nothing to suggest why it is notable, also there are no references either. IJA ( talk) 08:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 06:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Josie Cunningham

Josie Cunningham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD declined, all this person is famous for is that her boob job was paid for by the NHS. This has generated a lot of references in newspapers, but does not give her lasting notability IMO Gbawden ( talk) 07:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete ... Since my personal opinions aren't really appropriate here we'll say no evidence of notability!.. – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:TNT. The subject may be notable, but all the sourcing is tabloidery, nothing in the article is sourced with specificity, and in a short time the article has become a coatrack for BLP violations. There's just barely enough legitimate text to keep this from being an attack page, but we can hope for snow. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 15:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete TNT and pure WP:ATTACK tone. Unless The Times or some other sober Brit publication can write sanely about her, this can't be salvaged. Nate • ( chatter) 00:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:BIO as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 02:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. And kudos to Tokyogirl for the research. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Creeps (novel)

Creeps (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A book with no links to it and the author has no page. Wgolf ( talk) 06:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Withdrawn Wgolf ( talk) 05:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Okay I don't know-but somehow I just made 2 nominations for this....... Wgolf ( talk) 06:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I closed the first one so that this could continue. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 09:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete No in article claim for why this novel is important, no references that describe the book, heck, no plot synopsis. Looks line we have a poster child for CSD:NBooks. Hasteur ( talk) 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete One line article with just the name of a book. LaMona ( talk) 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Re speedy delete !votes What criterion listed in WP:CSD are you claiming this article meets? WP:CSD#A7 clearly says it does not apply to books. And it occurs to me that there is enough context in the article to meet WP:CSD#A1. 109.77.247.145 ( talk) 17:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per nom and is totally unreferenced . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. All I see are reviews by bloggers. We need professional reviews. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Huh. I thought I was pretty thorough, but I guess I missed a few sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above - All unreferenced which I assume is because there's nothing out there, Fails WP:N. – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. I did some digging and found three reviews. All three locations are places that would be considered to be usable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Quill & Quire is considered to be a RS for reviews, the Canadian Children's Book News appears to be the official journal for the Canadian Children's Book Centre, and CM Magazine is run by the Manitoba Library Association and the University of Manitoba. I did check to see if Hynes was a former student of UoM and he's not, so that'd count as a RS as well. I'll see what else I can find, but these three reviews are enough for me to vote for a weak keep on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment-Wow-looks like it was cleaned up. Problem with trying to look up Creeps on Google (or any search engine) is that you will get tons of other things, I got some stuff I rather not talk about also...I am considering withdrawing this. Wgolf ( talk) 16:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Wgolf - I searched on images and got "Night of the creeps" images .... Not sure they really fit the article tho. – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The references mentioned by Tokyogirl79 are sufficient for WP:GNG. This is why we need to be careful about rushing to delete articles. Tchaliburton ( talk) 02:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment-its not quite rushing considering how long the article has been around. Wgolf ( talk) 02:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• In all fairness, this took a lot of digging due to the false positives from the author's last name and book title. It also didn't help that the Canadian publishers didn't push the publicity for this as hard as they could have, as they didn't even bother to list the reviews on the Amazon page. (Not that we could use Amazon as a source, but it does help give us specific places to search.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Thanks-and yeah this was not a rush delete either given the fact that it has been around for years. Thank you though for finding info. Wgolf ( talk) 03:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• No problem! I can see why you were concerned with it, as this flew pretty solidly under the radar for the most part and again, the commonness of the name makes it hard to find those sources I did find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Yep! One thing I have noticed is that sometimes AFD's can really help a article. I could withdraw this but since it will likely be kept maybe not. (Or I'll withdraw later today) Wgolf ( talk) 14:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Note that all those saying delete did so before reliable sources proving it meets the GNG were added. [26] Dream Focus 05:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn-due to the fact that it actually has refs now. (And this is not really the 2nd nom to delete it-it is the first, I accidently pressed the AFD twice and yeah....) But thanks everyone! Wgolf ( talk) 05:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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 closed in favour of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creeps (novel) (2nd nomination) - everyone go and contribute there instead ( non-admin closure). St★lwart ¹¹¹ 09:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Creeps (novel)

Creeps (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A book with no links to it and the author has no page also. Wgolf ( talk) 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Okay I don't know-but somehow I just made 2 nominations for this....... Wgolf ( talk) 06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Mehrnoush Ghorbanali

Mehrnoush Ghorbanali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has had a notability tag for nearly 4 years. Says she is a poet but nothing about what she has done. Wgolf ( talk) 06:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 06:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 06:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Only self web as a source and even the subject name was wrongly written. This should have been deleted without discussion. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 21:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete, clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. Deor ( talk) 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC) reply

FreelyCall

FreelyCall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo of a nn business -No.Altenmann >t 05:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Nom has said everything. Op47 ( talk) 23:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't even show up on google. LaMona ( talk) 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete doesn't appear to pass our CORP guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. LHM ^{ask me a question} 15:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails notability guidelines, lacks any sort of coverage/sources outside of the company website. Upjav ( talk) 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. ( non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 02:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

John D'Agostino (financial services)

John D'Agostino (financial services) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:N Debonairchap ( talk) 06:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Subject is non-notable, and appears to be the author of his own article - or at least, the author is someone who knows a lot of non-verifiable details about Mr. D'Agostino (his primary school, etc), and has access to a high-res photo of Mr. D'Agostino. Article not written from a neutral point of view (unsourced and non-NPOV claim that he "grew up in a working-class family in Brooklyn"). Subject has held a number of middle-management positions, and been interviewed by trade press - that certainly doesn't meet notability criteria. Only possible grounds for notability are that the article claims he was the model for a bestselling fictionalised account of his career, but this claim appears unverifiable. The subject of the fictionalised book is "David Russo", not John D'Agostino, and the only sources I can find for the claim that it was based on Mr. D'Agostino's life are from Mr. D'Agostino himself. Whether or not it "has been optioned for movie production by Summit Entertainment", that doesn't in itself make the subject of this article notable. Recommend delete. Debonairchap ( talk) 07:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Lots of reliable sources describe his career and connect him to the book Rigged. Bloomberg article, Risk.net interview, CNBC interview, Fortune interview, Ben Mezrich's "Author's Note", Wall Street Journal piece, The Street piece, Market Watch article. It looks to me as if the photo was obtained by uploader dangerousrave directly from D'Agostino. Binksternet ( talk) 08:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article has POV problems and doesn't make good use of the information in the references. He is the subject of a book (albeit under a pseudonym, but it appears that everyone knows his real identity) and he has been involved in some interesting business developments. But the article needs to be more about those few activities that make him notable, and less about promoting him. I'll try to tone down some of the superlatives. LaMona ( talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

OK, look again. I toned down the POV problems, so now I think it is much more factual. LaMona ( talk) 16:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep All the information are verifiable if one cares to actually read them. There is a video in one of the reference link where the author of the book speaks at length on the subject. Information on subject's education history is also included in one article. unhedge ( talk) 10:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I stand corrected on the verifiability - indeed several sources do confirm the book was based on Mr D'Agostino, - and I welcome the slightly more NPOV rewrites. But I'd still suggest the subject doesn't meet notability criteria in his own right. He hasn't yet actually done anything to merit a wikipedia article - certainly, the novel based on his life merits an article, and perhaps we could merge some of this content with the article on the novel. But as stated, the subject himself doesn't presently appear to have done much more than hold down a middle-management position in the financial services industry, and hasn't been responsible for any notable decisions. By comparison, he's tagged in "Category:American stock traders" - such people are not tagged solely because they are stock traders, they are tagged because they are notable; being a stock trader does not confer notability per se. And if we look at the other names in that category, this becomes apparent: Bernard Baruch, Warren Buffet, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., George Soros. I see no evidence that the subject is in that league. His notability stems from the book. Delete this article, but merge some content with Rigged (book). Debonairchap ( talk) 10:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Wikipedia guidelines do note it is better to improve the article than delete it for not being good enough. There are far more un-notable subjects that Debonairchap created and helped keep on Wikipedia? 77.234.45.133 ( talk) 12:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, Mr. D'Agostino. Debonairchap ( talk) 19:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Ladies Tailor (2006 film)

Ladies Tailor (2006 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero indications of notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Studio:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDAFD: Ladies Tailor Vijay Kumar Udyakanth Mamidala Srinivas

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 19:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable enough. Preetikapoor0 ( talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - As you've been told before WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid reason to keep!. – Davey2010 • (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NFILMS. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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.  Sandstein  16:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hazara Muslim League

Hazara Muslim League (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY, but it is difficult with non-ENglish language topics. Boleyn ( talk) 18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• delete unreferenced and no real claim for notability. LibStar ( talk) 12:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Mesh Pillay

Mesh Pillay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)