Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volnovakha checkpoint attack (2nd nomination)

: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. Those in favor of keeping cite general notability, but as those favoring merge have noted, event notability (WP:EVENT, WP:LASTING) is the predominating guideline over simply receiving a large spurt of press coverage, as it's an amalgam of WP:NOT#NEWS, a policy, and its relationship to the general notability guideline. It's not enough to simply receive a lot of press coverage in a short spurt and therefore instantly become notable event (would violate WP:NOT#NEWS), nor is reliance on interwiki links, nor are prior closes an inherent pass to retention. I'd suggest, however, waiting a few months before re-nominating this article to allow a more thorough examination of the finer points of WP:EVENT as demonstrated in secondary sources. slakr\ talk / 02:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

=[[Volnovakha checkpoint attack]]=

{{notavote}}

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volnovakha checkpoint attack}}

:{{la|Volnovakha checkpoint attack}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Volnovakha_checkpoint_attack_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Volnovakha checkpoint attack}})

Not notable enough of an event for its own article, or to constitute a split fron the Donetsk People's Republic article. There are many small scale firefights. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I am not entirely sure what to say about this. How exactly do you "judge" the significance of the attack? Also, would not a merge be better than deleting the article so long as the information is accurate? Dustin (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A previous discussion was held to see if this article would be deleted. It was not, and it looks like another discussion is being held again. Well, it might be a small firefight, but it had significant media coverage at the time. I, with help from other users, created this article because something asked me to do it. I say it should be kept--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable event with wide press coverage and many casualities. Three interwikies. NickSt (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

::"Some notability", but not enough to exist as a standalone article apart from Donetsk People's Republic. Read the guidelines at the page I linked. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge into the DPR otherwise an outright delete will probably fail for the same reasons that it did last week. Issues with this page are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTABLE. Lunch for Two (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, 3 for merge, 1 for delete, and 2 for keep--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have changed my mind. Maybe it's best if this article is merged with the Donetsk People's Republic, and i understand why it should be merged. I read the thing about the notnews.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Donetsk People's Republic. We really need to put an end to this fractal growth of Ukrainian-conflict related articles. Every little thing ends up getting an article of its own, then it spawns little baby articles in turn. Not notable enough for a stand alone article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

:*But this incident with 18 killed soldiers deserve own article. It was huge media coverage in Ukraine/Russia uniquely. NickSt (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

:*Lasting effects are present now. Different media cover this incident at least in one-two weeks after incident: [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/national-guard-soldier-injured-during-attack-on-luhansk-military-unit-dies-350067.html] [http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/992.php] [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/kiev-general-killed-in-attack-on-chopper/story-fnlrv03c-1226936697677] [http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/roger-annis/2014/06/new-president-ukraine-deepens-civil-war-course-nato-backing]. NickSt (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

:*Also BBC list it as "Ukraine's deadliest clashes" here [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27618681]. NickSt (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

::Nonsense:

::First source you cite just notes that one of the soldiers wounded in the attack now died. That's not "lasting coverage".

::Second source you cite is neither reliable nor notable. It's more or less some internet forum. Where people talk about it. That's not "lasting coverage".

::Third source does not constitute coverage of the event, it's just a one sentence snippet as part of a general "So far, on the Ukrainian conflict show" overview. That's not "lasting coverage".

::Fourth source you cite is neither reliable nor notable. Nor does it contain actual coverage of this event except for a general "so far, on the Ukrainian conflict...". That's not "lasting coverage".

::NONE of these show "lasting coverage". And honestly, "lasting coverage" can't be shown by the mere fact that a particular news story can still be googled a week later. WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason for this article to be a stand alone one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge to Donetsk People's Republic per arguments presented above regarding every event as somehow meriting an article of its own. WP:NOTNEWS and no WP:GNG credentials established. There are current affairs events relating to the unrest in Ukraine every day and are related to the bigger picture. One so-called 'article' story is forgotten outside of the scope of the larger picture within a couple of days. The number of leaps on every single event smacks of either a desire to get another article under an editor's notch or, more difficult to monitor, a POV push into Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's just merge this with the Donetsk People's Republic, in other words an article within an article.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This appears to be the type of incident that will have long term notability and WP:NOTNEWS is not appropriate.--PinkBull 17:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge - Unless some changes are made to this article to make increase its bulk and purpose, then I think it would be better to just integrate it into another article. You aren't really losing the information then, plus you don't have to worry about maintaining a stubby little article. I believe that tallies up to six merges, three keeps and a delete from Lvivske. Dustin (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep (edit conflict) First of all keep per first Afd. The result was keep and it shouldn't of been renominated just days after the first Afd closed. Because of this, the discussion should be closed, and if desired, brought up later at an appropriate time. Also, the subject will always be notable. Well sourced. A clear keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment So when it comes to such articles as Titushky, we keep, and when it comes to this we either merge or delete??? Sure, people would say that my example doesn't belong here, but look at the bigger picture. Also, an input from {{ping|Yulia Romero}}, {{ping|Aleksandr Grigoryev}} and {{ping|Ukrained2012}} will be highly appreciated in this AfD. {{smiley}}--Mishae (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2014 (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.