 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 August 15. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. There were two main threads to the delete camp's argument. The first of these is that this article is a fork. Some argued that it is a fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. It may well have started off as a fork of this article, but clearly it covers more ground than that now. Others argued that it is a fork of multiple articles. Some in the keep camp argued that this article is an umbrella article bringing together different aspects of events in Ukraine. If it is accepted that an umbrella article would be valid then the fork argument fails whatever the current shortcomings of the article. It may be true that large amounts of duplication exist, but the way to deal with that is by adopting summary style, not by deletion. The question remains is such an umbrella article even valid. Some in the delete camp argued that there are different issues that should not be mixed. Against this the keep camp provided reliable sources bringing together the different aspects as a single conflict. I find that the delete camp have failed to counter this either with arguments from sources or arguments from policy so this position also fails. The second thread of the delete camp was that there is no Russian military intervention, or that there is none other than in Crimea, or that it is not proven that there is military intervention. Against this the keep camp produced sources discussing and comparing Russian intervention in Eastern Ukraine and comparing it Crimea, or speculating on it. The keep argument is that it is irrelevant whether or not the intervention is true, it is enough that sources are talking about it. Since WP content is based on reliable sources by policy, then I find that the keep camp has the strongest policy based argument here. Having said that, we need to be careful what we are writing as fact, what is a sources opinion, and what is pure speculation. But again, such problems are a matter for normal editing to sort out. They do not amount to grounds for deletion. SpinningSpark 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)