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The result was Withdrawn by requester, per discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Kramatorsk clashes[edit]

2014 Kramatorsk clashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a WP:FORK. It was created yesterday, for no apparent reason, and contains no original content. All of it is either a duplication of or copied from 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, or Donetsk People's Republic. We don't need another timeline. We've already got one. There is no indication that the separate events described here are found grouped together in reliable sources as the 'Kramatorsk clashes'. Let's get this out of the way. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the creator of this article I would like to state the following. Wikipedia always urges that material be relegated to other newer sub-articles from another article so that article's size could be cut-down. Which in fact I intended to do today. I intended to cut down those other two articles to only the basic information since the info is now in this one. EkoGraf (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is unacceptable, however, because it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain events in ways that are not found in reliable sources. Furthermore, these events are not at all described in reliable sources as the 'Kramatorsk clashes', nor are they grouped together. It is functionally a piece of original research. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the timeline already is a sub-article for that purpose. RGloucester — ☎ 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline is a sub-article but it does not contain all of the information that is here. Also, there are multiple precedens for this kind of article. I would refer you to Rif Dimashq clashes (November 2011–March 2012), Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011–March 2012), 2012 Aleppo Governorate clashes, Deir ez-Zor clashes (2011–present) where you don't have any source calling the events in that way but the names of the articles and both the templates are virtually the same to this one. I can find more examples if you like. EkoGraf (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, as we all know, one can read the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other stuff does exist, that does not mean it should exist. Wikipedia is not based on precedent. Regardless, those are quite different situations, as they are not adequately covered elsewhere, and because they are large, extended events over a period of time. Everything in this article is covered elsewhere adequately, and avoids giving WP:UNDUE weight. This article has no basis for existence. If you're trying to imply the events here are comparable to the events in those articles, then you are using a WP:CRYSTAL ball, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At present, these events do not have notability on their own as a specific chain of events. RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you would read that policy more carefully it states further In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability... The Kramatorsk incidents/clashes have been notable enough in the media since both pro-Western and pro-Russian media have been reporting on them in detail every time they appear. Also, that policy states the exact opposite should maybe used as well. That as much this article should not exist and the others should, it works viceversa as well, with maybe this one needing to exist and the others don't. And the crystal ball policy does not apply hear because I wasn't making a prediction, but a comparison. EkoGraf (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true, except that this does not meet the core policies of the project. I'd also like to clarify that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy. They haven't been notable on their own. All incidents regarding Kramatorsk in the western media have been reported in larger articles about the unrest in Donetsk Oblast as a whole, as an example. We've matched that style of coverage well, as there simply isn't enough content to warrant an independent article. You are making a prediction. You are implying that these events will continue happening, and thereby warrant keeping this article, even if it does not meet the standards at present. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as there simply isn't enough content to warrant an independent article Wikipedia does not have a policy on how much content is needed for an independent article. You are implying that these events will continue happening, and thereby warrant keeping this article I am not implying or predicting anything, I am stating fact, and fact is these events have already BEEN occurring for the last three weeks. And that time period is with which this article deals with. In any case, I stated my compromise proposition, that if other editors agree, I will cut-down those other two articles in material so this one wouldn't be a fork, which in fact was my original intention today. That way your own objectional issue to this article will no longer apply. But now I will wait before doing so until other editors voice their oppinions.EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is in you giving these events WP:UNDUE weight. The other articles cannot be trimmed, as that would be giving these events WP:UNDUE weight. It is inappropriate, at yet, for there to be yet another article dealing with events that have already been adequately described elsewhere, and which do not have enough notability to separate them out as a separate 'Kramatorsk clashes' article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are not notable in your opinion, not the media who report on them daily. And your argument that isn't true because they are talked about as only part of the larger unrest in Ukraine is simply in-correct because you have whole news articles devoted to specific incidents, for example the attack on the airbase which left up to 11 anti-Kiev fighters dead, or the alleged killing of 10 civilians. EkoGraf (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are WP:NOTNEWS. We don't write journalistic articles. We look at the overall schema of things, in terms of historicity. They are notable in the context of the overall unrest, they are not notable enough for their own encyclopaedic article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, your opinion. And I would say some of the things you just said are in contrast to Wikipedia'c policy on notability (ignoring what sources/media regard as notable). I would even venture to say that we deciding on our own the overall schema of things is Original Research in itself. EkoGraf (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide. We examine coverage, and give WP:DUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 20:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think this article should not be deleted. I'm not trying to take sides, though. -Arbutusthetree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly offended by your accusation Volunteer Marek. I only became interested in Ukraine this morning. For the last three years I have been editing Syrian articles and before that Libyan (check my edit history). And that other user seems more interested in Iraq than Syria. I'm seeing he edited only one Syrian article Free Syrian Army (once) and the semi-Syrian article ISIS (several times). EkoGraf (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, i'm a bit confused what's going on, because EkoGraf and Arbutus the tree are not the same users. I run my own independent user, and it's ridiculous to claim EkoGraaf and Arbutus the tree are the same users. Plus, I only just found out today that the "Kramatorsk Clashes" page had been made. Plus, i only just signed up for wikipedia recently. -Arbutus the Tree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, however, because the Siege of Sloviansk article is highly notable in its own right, and only pertains to one ongoing event. The same cannot be said for the Kramatorsk article, which puts together unrelated events that are not directly connected. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the Ukrainian military is carrying out the "anti-terrorist" operation in and around Kramatorsk similarly to Sloviansk. The only difference here is that they've entered the city. Also, multiple media outlets are just now reporting of the fighting in Kramatorsk, giving it notability that wasn't there before. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat true. However, the article, as it stands, isn't about the military operation at present. It is lumping together all events in the city over a longer duration. This does not seem appropriate. I might be accepting on article that only dealt with the present military events, which perhaps would now be justified by reliable sources. However, it should not include events not related to the present skirmishes. RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I agree with keeping the article with present events. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article could be merged with the Seige of Sloviansk?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two different towns, two different events, two different military operations. EkoGraf (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that merger, but User:EkoGraf has just hit the nail on the head. The article here can exist if it describes the present military operation. However, lumping other events in that are not part of that military operation goes against the way reliable sources cover the events. I'll say definitively that I'll withdraw my deletion request if the scope is limited to the present military operation, and if this article expands its coverage of that operation. RGloucester — ☎ 19:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what was the Army's capture of the airbase, in which 11 militants were killed, if not a military operation? EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was, but it wasn't separate from the overall events. The present operation in Kramatorsk is independent of the others, at least in the manner that it is reported upon. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The military has been conducting a military operation there since the day when they captured the airfield. EkoGraf (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same operation. There was a new offensive, over the past couple of days. This is entirely separate from the re-capture of the airfield weeks ago. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allright guys, I have 3 solutions we could try:

I'm ether for option 2 or option 3. User:RGloucester? EkoGraf (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are acceptable. Both give WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 21:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that didn't work. So would it be good to create an article called the "Kramatorsk" offensive with only information about the recent offensive? Allthough if that is the solution, in the "history" part of the article, it should say that Ukrainian troops captured the airfield on April 15 and unsuccessfully tried to take the town a day later. Is that okay? --Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept this solution. A small background section is not a problem. RGloucester — ☎ 21:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RTGloucester for your cooperation. Do you think this is okay EkoGraf? This solution would have the article "Kramstorsk Offensive" with information up from May 2 and a background section with the military operation on April 15 with info about the airfield capture? --Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that in essence option number 2, just putting the airfield captured into a background section? :P In any case, agree. Also include the militant attack on the airfield that destroyed the helicopter and the place in the background section. EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EkoGraf: It isn't the same to me, as it avoids lumping together separate events. The article's scope will be the offensive, but background details will be presented as such so that the reader is informed of what led to the offensive. My problem with this article, as I've said, is the way it lumps together events in ways that are not found in sources, and which give WP:UNDUE weight. Regardless, if you are willing to accept this proposal, I will withdraw my deletion request. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if the April 15. offensive and the militant attack on the helicopter were included in the background section of the article, would that be okay?—Arbutus the tree (talk) 23:36, 4 May 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.
More