Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk status referendum, 2014

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

redirects for discussion. slakr\ talk / 09:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Donetsk status referendum, 2014

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence that the referendum they called for will ever take place. There is no means for such a vote to be carried out and rebels only control 1 full city, and a few other buildings. This seems to be

WP:CRYSTAL fortune telling. Propose deletion until it's concrete such a thing will happen, or if it happens (on a limited scale) if it requires its own page. Львівське (говорити) 05:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no rush to delete. The referendum is called for 11 May. If the referendum does not take place then, the article can then be deleted. Wikipedia can survive the transitory existence of this article for three weeks in that case. The previous post, with its mentioning that "rebels only control 1 full city", shows a clear political motivation for this deletion request, with the editor proposing deletion apparently thinking that Wikipedia should be turned into a propaganda vehicle for Ukrainian nationalist extremists. – Herzen (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your 'nationalist extremist conspiracy' rhetoric to a minimum, thanks. --Львівське (говорити) 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually even canceled referenda are/can be notable. POV deletions based on supporting one side are not credible. In that case i support Herzen
Its also akin to Ccrimea
Also the credibility of the POV request is up for question , as Herzen says Lihaas (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth was the AfD a "POV request"? I only cited wikipedia policy, not personal interpretations or a partisan point of view. My issue that prompted the filing was entirely under the purview that this is theoretical and proposed, but not legitimately destined to happen. This content can still be kept on the DPR root article, and split when its evident that an article on a referendum is needed. --Львівське (говорити) 23:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place
WP:CRYSTAL. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Notable: RS sources have said it . Not definite till it takes palce: then why do we have all election articles before the election? Guideliens are not policy, btwLihaas (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
all they have stated is that they 'want a referendum no later than may 11'. This is not definite to take place, it's a request made by some rebels who have no capacity whatsoever to carry out a state-wide vote. --Львівське (говорити) 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
READ the source, on the page the surce AFFIRMED it will take place now tht they want it. They wanted int 5 weeks ago, when the page was created the y said it WILL happen and are preparing g their election commission. Seems you just read the article title and got hyper-senseitive. vLihaas (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be hyper-sensitive that your article about a fictional referendum got AfD'd... --Львівське (говорити) 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did read the source and I see a lot of planning, preparing, presentation to Donetsk officials and so forth but I see not single one mention of anything that WILL happen or is AFFIRMED to happen, regardless of whether we write it in caps lock or not. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Let´s not get into name calling such as Ukrainian nationalist extremists. Especially when the one who opened this delete request is Ukrainian and the one using these terms is Russian. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the name. If we want a name change, we could propose having the closing admin rename the article. Alternatively, someone could always just
boldly rename it to Donetsk referendum after the redirect has occurred. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I can use exactly the same argument to say that the article Government of Ukraine should be deleted. No Ukrainian Government currently exists: (1) governments are only called "governments" as opposed to regimes if they are legitimate, and the current Kiev regime clearly is not legitimate because the proper Constitutional procedure was not followed to remove the legitimately elected president, and because the new cabinet was assembled on the basis of representing the groups that were used to storm government buildings to overturn the legal government; (2) the Kiev regime cannot disarm the armed group Right Sector or even force it to leave government buildings in Kiev which it continues to occupy; (3) the Kiev regime has no control over vast swaths of Ukrainian territory, especially in the southeast. It is possible that a legitimate, functional Ukrainian government will be restored at some point in the future, but it is equally possible that the Ukraine will just cease to exist. Thus, the article Government of Ukraine has exactly the same grounds for deletion as the article which is here being proposed for deletion. – Herzen (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then request that page for deletion and let's discuss it there.
WP:OSE. Please, read, Wikipedia guidelines. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Bringing your own bias and POV into the discussion is not going to help you. Your views about Ukrainian government or this referendum interest no one per
WP:NPOV. Sources do matter. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Your argument is completely invalid. If you were to nominate the
disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see
WP:OTHERSTUFF; the approach taken on another article is a non-argument as regards determining whether this article is consistent with policy, a determination which must be made on the merits of this particular case alone. Snow (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree.
WP:CRYSTAL is Wikipedia policy, and it directly states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The reason that future elections in nations such as, say, the United States get future articles is because the US has a central government capable of conducting elections, so they are almost certain to take place (and even if they don't, that fact is notable in and of itself because it is probably indicative of a major disaster or regime change). Donetsk consists of a couple of occupied buildings while the majority of the area is still in Ukranian control. It is highly doubtful that they will be able to carry out this referendum, and if they fail to do so then it isn't notable as it would just amount to a failed nnouncement. This (in addition to general notability concerns) is justification for a delete (or a redirect, see above).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree. It's very unlikely that the referendum will take place in current conditions, while policy specifically says that the event needs to be **almost certain**. SkywalkerPL (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment How is one to say it is fictional when RS sources have cited it? Was crimea a fiction befor it happened? Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is saying that this is fictional, it has been mentioned that part is a fact but it is
    WP:CRYSTAL right now to say that it will be carried through for a number of reasons mentioned above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Its not, as
WP:CRYSTAL page says that Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.. Which, as you agreed, is not the case. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Future events that get articles are generally so notable that the event will still warrant an article even if it is never held. For example, we always create articles about the Olympic games before they open. This is because even canceled Olympic games, such as the 1944 Summer Olympics, are notable enough for an article, so we know the upcoming games are guaranteed to meet notability requirements. In the probable event that this referendum never occurs, will it warrant an article? If your answer is no, then it doesn't deserve an article. Crystal does not state that we should create articles about any subject that might potentially become notable in the future. To the contrary, if you click the link you'll see that it pretty much states the exact opposite of my earlier sentence. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, for the present time, to Donetsk People's Republic, which can easily accommodate and contextualize the the information, and where it is likely to be of most use to our readers at the present time anyway. It's not policy-consistent to operate under the prediction that the subject will develop enough to justify a stand-alone article. The information is certainly worth preserving and is decently sourced, but not all information that is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia constitutes a need for a separate article space. A few weeks will suffice to tell us what develops of this situation and until then the cohesiveness and accuracy of our coverage will benefit from not rapidly spinning out articles on the basis of uncertain developments in the very chaotic and rapidly moving events of these circumstances. Snow (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect if anything it should be mentioned in Donetsk People's Republic article but right now it certainly isn't notable enough to get it's own article (and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) SkywalkerPL (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - following the recent announcement that the referendum ballots are already in print and that enough of them will be produced to cover all 3.2 million registered voters [1].
    talk) 03:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The article states that an unnamed activist claimed than an order of 3.2 million ballots had been sent to a local print shop. A mock ballot has been created (which is something that anyone with Microsoft Word can create in a manner of minutes), but they do not currently have the 3.2 million ballots on hand nor an explanation of how they will conduct a referendum in an area that is still, to a greater or lesser extent, under Ukrainian control. While the source is good, I don't think its enough to meet the "nearly certainly going to happen" criteria of Crystal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not merely expressed by an activist, it is confirmed by the official, responsible for organizing the referendum. While it certainly is true that the DPR does not controll all of its claimed territory, neither does Syria, yet no one doubts that the
talk) 06:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Not really analogous situations at all; there's little doubt that the Syrian presidential election will proceed, but in any event, it's notability is already established by existing sources which treat the subject in a wide variety of contexts, relevance which will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the election ever actually occurs. What you are suggesting with regard to this article is the use of a source about a trivial aspect of the the subject to prognosticate that other sources sufficient to establish the notability and proper encyclopedic context for this referendum will exist. And we can't know that yet. Snow (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian government: controls about half of its claimed territory, while fighting a brutal civil war; little doubt over its ability to hold the election. DPR: controls about half of its claimed territory, no civil war yet; ability to hold the referendum in serious doubt. Clearly, this is a very strange argument to make. Here is another source, where one of the DPR's leader calls the referendum "inevitable": [2].
talk) 07:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Syria has effective control over all of the institutions needed to hold an election and a great deal of the territory the government controls is under their effective occupation (meaning no significant rebel activity threatens their control). Donetsk controls several government buildings and checkpoints (which is nowhere close to the 50% of the territory you claimed), all of which are being or are liable to quickly be contested by the Ukrainian government and military before the May 11 referendum. They do not have control over the institutions needed to hold such an election. The two entities are incomparable. Plus, the Syrian election has gotten so much coverage and political reactions that it will be notable whether or not it is actually held. This does not apply with the status referendum Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your last point, the most cursory of searches yields dozens of reliable sources on the referendum. Regarding your claim about DPR controlling "a few buildings and checkpoints"... Seriously?.. Then why did Ukraine's de-facto president just admitted to having lost control of not only Donetsk, but Lugansk as well [3]? Your prognostications about the Ukrainian army pouring in en masse are currently not supported by any sources. They couldn't even
talk) 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That was a reference to controlling the situation in general, not the entire provinces --Львівське (говорити) 23:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an exercise in
talk) 00:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because they can't stop the violence doesn't mean the separatists actively control the regions and their infrastructure and institutions. The statement was solely on the policing situation. AFAIK they only control Sloviansk and Kramatorsk in their entirety (the former being blockaded), and other cities have buildings occupied but not city-wide control.--Львівське (говорити) 17:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this article still fails the "almost certain to take place" criteria of
WP:CRYSTAL. This very article even says as much, stating "It is far from clear how any referendum can be held". I've also analyzed a news source further down that discusses why the referendum is unlikely to happen. In the end, I agree that this event is somewhat notable as its gotten some amount of coverage in the news. However it is better covered in the Donetsk article (which currently covers the referendum quit nicely) until such a point in time where the referendum will clearly be held. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The usage of expressions like "regime in Kiev" shows the editors political affiliation and non-neutral position in the question. Besides, from the given sources only Guardian can be considered as a reliable and neutral source; and in Guardian referendum is not discussed in length, but rather mentioned in the context of the general Ukrainian Crisis. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Christian Science Monitor contains these statements: "Despite largely uniform calls for a referendum on "federalization" of Ukraine,the anti-Kiev protesters now occupying government buildings across the restive Donbas region in eastern Ukraine don't appear to have a plan for how to bring that about" and "And because of a lack of governmental infrastructure and a dearth of the expertise to enact the necessary logistics, their goals appear to be out of reach". The entire article states very clearly that there is serious doubt that the referendum will take place. This does not met the "nearly certain to happen" requirement of Crystal. To the contrary, this entire article is about how the referendum fails that policy. While I agree that this is notable enough for inclusion in the Donetsk article(and it already gets covered there, hence my redirect vote) due to some news coverage, the fact that they are attempting to hold a referendum does not warrant an article unless it is clear that it will almost certainly take place. As no one in the republic can explain how they will conducting holding the referendum, a redirect is a good decision. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the referendum has been agreed on: ("Do you support the creation of the Donetsk People's Republic?") [8] and polling stations are already being prepared:[9] and with pro-Kiev forces nowhere in sight, it's becoming clear that this referendum will be held, questions of legitimacy and how successful it will be with the wider population aside. --Tocino 08:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The wording doesn't matter in terms of notability, as anyone can create a ballot given access to Microsoft Word and 15 minutes of time. What matters is whether the referendum can actually be held. Most of the news I've seen on the referendum raises serious doubts as to whether it will take place for the reasons I've listed above. The Voice of Russia is the Russian governments official news station, which I'm hesitant to count as reliable due to some severe conflicts of interest. If you think that I'm just being irrational, then please show me non-Russian sources stating the referendum will almost certainly occur (this is needed to meet the diversity of source requirement for notability anyways) Otherwise, this referendum is more than adequately covered in the article on Donetsk Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is getting completely out of hand, the suggested date is two weeks away and with no real control, money, or jurisdiction, some separatist authorities plan on holding a referendum? WP:CRYSTAL this. § DDima 04:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate We should be careful to avoid confusing this proposed referendum with the successful 25 March referendum. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 2 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donetsk_status_referendum,_2014&oldid=1069506091"