Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT rights in Lugansk

:{{la|LGBT rights in Lugansk}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LGBT_rights_in_Lugansk Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|LGBT rights in Lugansk}})

:{{la|LGBT rights in Donetsk}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LGBT_rights_in_Donetsk Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|LGBT rights in Donetsk}})

This article is an utter nonsense. First of all, it posits "Lugansk" as a "country", when no such country exists. Instead, it appears to be trying to talk about the Lugansk People's Republic. The content of this article, however, is largely not about the Luhansk region or the Lugansk People's Republic, but about Ukrainian, Soviet, and Russian history. This article is a complete nonsense coatrack, and needs to be deleted. The one sentence about the "Lugansk People's Republic" can and is dealt with in the Lugansk People's Republic article. The same rationale applies exactly to LGBT rights in Donetsk. RGloucester — ☎ 20:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as absolute and utter WP:OR. Even if we were to overlook the fact that neither the Lugansk People's Republic or Donetsk People's Republic are even recognised states/countries, where is the rest of the content coming from? Given that a large number of editors are unable to even work out what the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Novorossiya_%28confederation%29#De_facto_flag_is_not_the_one_that.27s_in_the_infobox flag of the Novorossiya confederation] is using any RS (including BIASED sources), where are the RS for these articles? Completely and patently propagandist nonsense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete A general screening of the sources (including the BBC News article listing all the LGBT legal status) reveals that none of Lugansk or Donetsk are even mentioned in-text. WP:OR is smelling strong here. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• delete not sure why this is even relisted. Definite original research. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:OR or poor content isn't a valid deletion criterion (except for original theories and conclusions), since it can be fixed through general editing (see WP:BEFORE § c1). (This isn't a keep vote) Esquivalience ^t 02:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

::I believe that being "made up" and the equivalent of a hoax article is certainly a valid deletion criteria. Nothing can be "fixed", because the premise is flawed and based in OR. Please see the very guideline you mentioned "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)". RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

::: The information about the irrelevant countries can be removed, and the "country" part can be fixed. While the self-proclaimed republic is not widely recognized as a country, it's not a hoax, nor is the LGBT rights (or lack thereof) one. It still may not be notable, though. Esquivalience ^t 02:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

::::It is not recognised as a "country" by anyone, including the Russian government. The "hoax" is the narrative that weaves together pieces of histories that have nothing to do with "Lugansk", an entity that no one recognises, and puts them together so as to form a coherent history of "LGBT rights in Lugansk" that does not exist in reliable sources.

::::: This reliable source states that LGBT rights (or the lack thereof) exists: [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/25/ukraine-rebels-love-russia-hate-gays-threaten-executions.html], and this Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (a Ukranian human right organization [http://www.khpg.org/en/index.php?r=2.1.1 founded in 1992]) also says the same thing [http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1412628810 here]. Even if it isn't recognized as a country, it's a due mention in the main article for the self-proclaimed country. Esquivalience ^t 03:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, but like I said, that's already been covered in the existing article for ages (in the case of the DPR article), making this a fork laden with OR. The main purpose of this fork is to weave a narrative that does not appear in RS, i.e. OR. RGloucester — ☎ 04:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge (selective) LGBT rights in Lugansk People's Republic with Lugansk People's Republic and same for the other article, but for a different reason as per my above statement: Fails WP:GNG: little mention or coverage in reliable sources. However, a merge would be appropriate. I don't see any WP:OR in the sections. Esquivalience ^t 02:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge LGBT rights in Lugansk with Luhansk People's Republic it really doesn't make any sense to have a separate article for this. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.