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. Wikipedia has articles about lots of things that might not exist; the issue here is whether this supposed Russian insurgent group has enough coverage in reliable sources for us to write an article about them. About this, there is no consensus here. The quality of much of the discussion is poor: many people only assert that the topic is notable (or not), but what is lacking here is any serious discussion of the specific sources that the article cites and their quality. Absent such discussion, I have no grounds on which to determine whose arguments are stronger. Sandstein 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Republican Army (Russia)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

National Republican Army (Russia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is for an organization that is currently only alleged to actually exist. The only sources listed are a Guardian article reporting a statement by the Russian opposition politician Ilya Ponomarev, which explicitly states that "The Guardian has not verified the authenticity of Ponomarev’s claims", and a manifesto posted on Twitter which has been copy-pasted here in its entirety.

I think this is a case of too soon. If the existence of this organization can be independently verified by other sources, then the article has a reason to stay up. But as of yet, this is just an article based on an unsubstantiated claim of an organization that may or may not even exist. Grnrchst (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, and Russia. Grnrchst (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP - with a warning 84.71.21.190 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article deserves deletion. Sure, there are not much information about the organisation, but that's only because this organization surfaced just few hours ago. It is verified by many independent sources. They also sent out this manifesto through their official Telegram chatroom called Rospartisan. They are legit, they are true. Don't delete this page! We will update it as soon as more fact-checked information surfaces. 2A01:C846:D81:FE00:D581:C34D:D22C:9E12 (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If their existence has indeed been "verified by many independent sources", then it should be no problem for you or others to add those sources to the article. An "official Telegram chatroom" is not sufficient evidence, at best it's a primary source but it's definitely not reliable. Grnrchst (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst I see your point and your probably right it´s too soon, but are there not plenty of articles about alleged organisations, Beings, and so on... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That other stuff exists is not a sufficient reason to keep an article. Grnrchst (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no claim it exists, it says it has been alleged to exist. It also says it has been alleged to not exist. There is a controversy. We report what the sources say on both sides there are many opinions and Wikipedia allows for multiple points of view. What's important for AfD purpose is how much coverage it gets. -- GreenC 20:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Ponomarev currently appears to be the only source of their existence as telegram channel Rospartizan supposedly belongs to him. 185.252.109.200 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No hurry to take it down and no reason. Wait and see who edits it. 38.70.156.135 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Now that the page is created, I think we should wait. The things are evolving so quickly, and new information becomes available everyday. We should wait for a certain period of time, before deleting it. As people are more likely to add the information onto existing page, than create a new one. Wiki6995 (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I have been a user of Wikipedia for many years and I really can't believe that Wikipedia is censoring by denial when Russians themselves think they can be arrested for any reason by their Government. They clearly exist, they have published a manifesto and taken responsibility for a terrorist act. One can hardly expect such an organisation to do more than they have considering the Government of biggest country in the world is after them. The manifesto is on YouTube, the terrorism is all over the world's media. Wikipedia can certainly put a caution comment at the top but to delete is censorship of the worst kind. If you do this you might as well delete my account because it will be the last time I trust or use Wikipedia. Davidpalmer24 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't censorship, it's a question of notability and verifiability. Grnrchst (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is a bombing in Moscow notable, or verifiable? Veskers (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bombing is, sure. Sufficient sources for an article about the NRA do not, at this time, exist. That may change by tomorrow. Or it may not. Remember, "notable" is not the same as "important". "Notable" is "has received coverage". DS (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TDLI and WP:IQUIT. Firestar464 (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They said it "is all over the world's media". It is a source-focused keep rationale which is valid. We can't expert every participant to know the rules like an expert. -- GreenC 18:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The article is relevant, accurate, and of great public interest. The article is upfront and direct about the fact that the existence of the NRA as an actual insurgency group is not established. However, criticism of this article on the basis that the NRA may turn out to be a feint or fiction misses the point. The news event is real and notable. The attribution by Ilya Ponomarev to the NRA is real and notable. There will be many searches on Wikipedia by people trying to learn what the NRA is or is not. There should not be a search-black hole in Wikipedia on this notable topic. Wadams92101 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOSE. Firestar464 (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They said it is "notable". It is a valid Keep rationale. That they also gave their opinion about it being of public interest is not disallowed. -- GreenC 18:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT. There's definitely enough notability at the moment, and tons of major news organizations are reporting on this. The article is very clear that it is an alleged organization, and there's an entire section dedicated to the skepticism of its existence. If it turns out to be a hoax it can be deleted and rolled into Dugina's article. Janrahan (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it. We can't really expect them to publish membership lists and even the knowledge that they are new is helpful when looking up who they are. 2003:DC:B720:543:4ECC:6AFF:FE93:1F63 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete iffy sources and could even be a hoax at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it could be a hoax? Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources and the fact the Guardian didn't verify the fact. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources is probably a consequence of current censorship in Russia. Many western media outlets left Russia near the start of the war, or were limited in how they can operate in Russia (what they can say, or their personnel in Russia would be arrested). They're probably forced to wait until Russian sources like RT cover whatever the official line is.

I don't think it is a hoax unless the original video of Dugin himself is fake, but that doesn't seem to be the case as of 08/22/2022 since western media outlets are covering the story (BBC, The Daily Beast, CNN, etc). Veskers (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Give it a few days. I don't believe this topic will be notable but there's many important Western newspapers already writing articles on this organization. Most sources are less than 24 hours long. It would be too soon and perhaps a mistake if this article was quickly deleted. White-blue-white flag was nominated for deletion very quickly and the result was to merge, but as the discussion developed, so many new sources appeared that the topic now had sufficient coverage and was kept. Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too soon. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Super Dromaeosaurus, at least for time being, until events in near future prove or disprove the group's notability. —Sundostund (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' 143.178.169.125 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Everything is based on Ponomaryov's claims. Until there is independent confirmation of this group's existence, it should be regarded as fictional and it does not meet notability guidelines. Mellk (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The manifesto was posted to Twitter by someone other than Ponomaryov. But even if it was it doesn't matter because so many reliable source consider his claims notable enough for publication. -- GreenC 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a random Twitter account, forget about WP:V. Mellk (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are reporting this story. -- GreenC 18:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say they were not? You used a random Twitter account as a ref for the manifesto, this is what I was referring to. Mellk (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get that people are excited about a potential resistance group of some sort, but the reporting is sensationalist and we know nothing about this "group" apart from some claims by one person, which could be some SBU hoax or whatever, who knows. Just because various news sources have mentioned it does not mean it automatically qualifies to have its own article, this is not what it says in notability guidelines. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am staying at delete because nothing has changed. HighKing also made a good point. This "group" can be mentioned in the article about the killing and Ponomarev's bio, it should not have its own article. Mellk (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned in many press articles, simply search for it on Google. Those sources can be integrated into the article gradually. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because alleged things can be notable. Notability is determined by sources, not truth. -- GreenC 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there enough reliable sources to determine notability though? Currently it doesn't seem like there are, as all information of this organisation comes from one person. To contrast, the FSB has claimed the attack was carried out by a Ukrainian named Natalia Vovk, but there isn't an article for this alleged person. It doesn't seem like this alleged group has any notability of its own, outside of the assassination of Darya Dugina, so I don't understand why there needs to be a separate article right now. Grnrchst (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any reliable source coverage about this Natalia Vovk person? Regards SoWhy 15:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Like the alleged NRA, a number of publications have reported on it,[1][2][3] and like the alleged NRA, there is only one source responsible for this information. Given this, I don't think either are currently notable enough to warrant their own articles. The article about Dugina covers this information well enough for now. Grnrchst (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that it is only Ponomarev (exile in Ukraine) who has made all claims about this NRA, no one else has said anything, is suspicious. I would change to keep if all claims (all unverified) weren't made by simply one person. Mellk (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is poignant and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.4.176 (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While it is possible it turns out its size and importance are being misrepresented by Ilya Ponomarev, that much of the claimed actions are not theirs, or even that the organization isn't real, the fact of the matter is that this is being reported on everywhere. It is only likely to gain notability and worldwide coverage (even if it ends up being fake). What matters most is if the topic is notable enough to be present on Wikipedia, and I would say this easily covers notability guidelines/standards. Also, to all editors citing "too soon", I would like to point out that isn't a part of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is an essay on notability by editors. That doesn't make it irrelevant or unimportant, but it is not a valid reason for removal, especially as Wikipedia articles on current events and news have become more and more common. -- SharkyIzrod (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Aside from the issue of "too soon", is this subject currently notable enough to warrant its own article? Given that all reports about it stem from a single source (Ponomarev), I don't see why this currently necessitates an article separate from the one discussing the death of Darya Dugina (which itself includes other claims, from different sources, about the attacker[s]) or the one about Ilya Ponomarev itself.

  Both of these articles are much longer and have clearer notability. Nothing that's currently said in this article couldn't be easily incorporated into them. Of course its notability may change in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Grnrchst (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I created a draft for the subject Draft:National Republican Army (Russia). It was clear there was not enough for an article with the limited amount of reporting. This should be put into draft space until there is more reliable information. Thriley (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with draftifying as an alternative to deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is notable by virtue of the sheer volume of media coverage (both mainstream media and social media) as well as the notability of Ilya Ponomarev himself.
  

  Enquire (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. There is so little known about the group as of now, it might be a front or it might be the start of a serious terrorist organisation. They certainly pass notability guidelines at the very least. 78.152.254.96 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Special:Contributions/78.152.254.96 This is the 4th edit made by this user, less than a day after it was created. Dream Focus 05:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with Killing of Darya Dugina. There is clearly no independent notability now. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with merging as an alternative to deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all clear there is a lack of notability. -- GreenC 18:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this should have stayed as a draft awaiting more sources/developments, while being mentioned explicitly on Darya Dugina's and Ilya Ponomarev's articles. Actually there's a good bit with sources at the end of Ponomarev's article pointing out the claims can't be verified. Narananas (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether and how it exists in reality may be debatable, but in any case it already exists as a term. Newspapers all over the world are writing about it and people are looking for information about it on Wikipedia. We cannot stick our heads in the sand. --Kychot (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The term existed for a long time to refer to the pro-Nazi Italian army National Republican Army. Mellk (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was also used by another group in (Pakistan? Burma?). Category:National liberation armies has others with similar names.. it's like a genre. But disambig issues are not important for AfD. -- GreenC 18:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Agreed. JOSDC (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON which I mentioned on the talk page of the article. This orgnization was only known to have "existed" yesterday, we know almost nothing about it, by Wiki standards this is nothing more than a rumor. Fijipedia (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We know who their leader is, their manifesto and of a bombing they committed in Moscow which killed a woman that has/is making international headlines. Wikipedia articles have been made over less significent events and organizations. It's breaking news, yes, but are you proposing Wikipedia have a certain minimum time limit, before articles can be made? There's no rule about making a Wikipedia article on something which happens today, or "yesterday". Veskers (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — SummerKrut 16:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. However, many readers will visit this page after reading a newspaper or watching news (TV or online) or after viewing a social media post. Readers come to Wikipedia to find an objective, unbiased assessment of all such media reports (with full citations and references).
  

  Enquire (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A deletion of this page in this moment is not very thoughtful. We should be able to keep this until more info unfolds. Then rewrite the page or incorporate it with the article about the war (i.e. special military operations).
  Question the page, ask for better references, but ask for deletion - that is nothing but stupidity. Red squared! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.52.6 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a developing event/organisation. It should be available for verifiably sourced updates as they come to light. It should however also be closely monitored so that it doesn't become a sparring ground for vandalism. At the very least, placing it in a Draft holding pattern might be warranted. MelioraCogito (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the arguments of limited evidence, but that is exactly what we should be educating people about. The references discussing it are solid; it is being discussed by reliable sources. Wikipedia is here to inform. People are googling this and Wikipedia needs to inform them this is mostly the claim of a single source but it is being taken seriously by reliable sources. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the skepticism of the claims of the NRA's very existence is entirely warranted, and I feel amenable to draftifying the article if necessray. However, I would write as someone who's put time into the Ilya Ponomarev page, that it seems readily apparent that he and the media outlets he created are willing to propagandize for the group which in some ways makes it real. It is also notable that Ilya Ponomarev, a dissident parliamentarian, has embraced not only the rhetoric of the (R)NRA, but is broadcasting what amount to instructions on propaganda of the deed. I don't think he'd do that unless he's basically given the group his blessing –which is enough of a force in itself to keep the page. Evackost (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for bringing your knowledge about Ponomarev to the table. I'm still unconvinced that Ponomarev's connection itself warrants a separate article, but I appreciate you adding this perspective. Grnrchst (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This page documents an important area of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. It should be improved, made more neutral, and made more reliable with more references, but it shouldnot be deleted. --HarmfulHurdle91 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait More and more sources are writing about this organization and can determine its notability. If this is deleted, merge it into Darya Dugina &/or the draft article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a serious allegation legitimized by the fact that Ilya Ponomarev is a venerable dissident respected by Western intelligence. LordParsifal (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a hearsay tabloid. 172.58.203.194 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Special:Contributions/172.58.203.194 This IP address is partially blocked already. Two of the five edits ever made by it, are the deletion vote above and a comment on the talk page. No other post made by this address this year. Dream Focus 05:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (with warnings)

  The scant information will serve as call for more information/verification. Besides; Wikipedia dedicates a page to the Loch Ness Monster - a page that contains the following statement "Evidence of its existence is anecdotal, with a number of disputed photographs and sonar readings."

  The National Republican Army 'is a thing' as the kids say! 2A00:23C8:AD80:2201:58:2270:D28B:9D57 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (with warnings) The article makes clear that it is an alleged organisation; it is useful to know that it is connected with Ilya Ponomarev, and I wouldn't have known this but for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Bavington (talk • contribs) 21:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Even if this organization does not exist, it's still notable. The "Ghost of Kyiv" also has a Wikipedia page, and he's fictional. SuperSardus (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A bombing in Moscow is a major event, especially during wartime. A woman lost her life. I think it is disrespectful to the person who lost her life to deny an article documenting the organization which planned/executed it. Vladimir Putin himself is talking about this bombing, why can Wikipedia users not read about what happened and who committed it?

I don't see any compelling arguments for the article to be removed. More sources would be nice, but for obviously such a new organization is going to have limited information available. Person some material from Ilya Ponomarev's page should be added to the article, since he seems to be the group's leader currently. Veskers (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The fact that this probably non-existent organization may actually be some sort of cover for the assassination operation against Dugin gives it significance despite its likely non-existence.

In conjunction with the information the FSB has asserted in regard to the killing of Dugina (assuming for the moment that it is true) it suggests a motive for a possible SBU operation that would otherwise be hard to identify, to wit, an attempt to plant the idea of significant internal and violent Russian opposition. The idea of such an opposition in Russia is ludicrous, but that doesn't mean that an operation to try to promote the idea of such a phenomenon did not take place.

Keeping this suddenly-created page for the time being helps with the evidence trail. 71.178.213.179 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This organisation claimed responsibility for at least one act of terrorism/aggression, which makes it relevant to the conflict. Currently a weak keep, give it another week and see what happens. ArticCynda (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation claimed responsibility, according to Ponomarev. Mellk (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously very important to have some content on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.72.9.161 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Darya Dugina#Killing (or any article that may arise out of that section) as it doesn't seem the group, if it even exists, has any notability outside of the assassination. I know WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to organizations, but the general principle I think makes sense in this case. ansh.666 01:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The story is still developing and more evidence could surface of this being a real organization. Even if it turns out to be fake, I believe it is still notable enough to show the organization as a made-up entity, as someone else said, the Ghost of Kyiv was a fictitious entity but still has its own article.Glakes (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ghost of Kyiv claims were made by various Ukrainian government officials and figures. All claims about NRA is made by one person, Ponomarev, who just lives in exile. Mellk (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• draftify or delete I'm seeing numerous keep responses here that are all hypothetical: it may be important, but then again, it may be all bullshit. We do way too much news-reporting-editing anyway, but as there is no deadline, this is a clear case where we can wait to publish an article until we can be sure that its subject can be substantiated. Keep it as a draft if you want, but if we can give it some time to develop and see if it does amount to something, it can spend that time in draft space or somewhere else outside the articles proper. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alleged entities have articles, so why not?RKT7789 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The main argument for "delete" seems to be that this organization might not exist, at least not as an authentically Russian organization. Even if it exists only in Ukrainian propaganda, it is still notable and we can still have an article about it. Compromat2 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep (with warnings), Wait or Redirect all seem like reasonable choices. If this gets deleted & then afterwards the group turns out to be fully legit, it means more work to put the page back and essentially is a capitulation to those who don't like this page's existence because it reveals an inconvenient truth. JoeWiki1969 (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 16 refs at present and plenty of fictional organisations have wiki articles. Tiny Particle (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, depending on how the situation develops I don't mind it being merged into the article on Dugina's assassination, but deleting makes no sense, as particular pieces of information in this article are worthy of inclusion. Max Semenik (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMKairos (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC) (copied from talk page where it was placed with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not newspaper" --SoWhy 10:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  Special:Contributions/FMKairos Two post ever, one at this AFD, the other on the talk page of the article. Dream Focus 05:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this should be deleted. A notable individual has alleged the group to exist in connection with a notable assassination - that much is verifiable. So if the group is mentioned anywhere it should only be on the article for said notable individual or said notable assassination, until such time that the group meets the notability criteria. 37.157.52.71 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's just sensible to keep, to delete it would be to deny the existence of the organisation. Great Mercian (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Delete. This is apparently another non-existent organization, just like Liberation Army of Dagestan, a fake organization that suddenly appeared after another false flag operation by the FSB. Someone probably fed disinformation to Ilya Ponomarev. Or perhaps this is something remotely similar to Operation Trust. Or another Petrograd Military Organization. They do not invent anything new. The alleged perpetrator, Vovk was probably another Patsy paid by the FSB to make the travel without even knowing why. Should pages like that one exist? Arguably, they might if the non-existent organization was highly notable and widely covered in sources. Just do not say that such organization was responsible for anything on WP pages, because that means promoting disinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to "delete" because this is hardly such a notable hoax, and by keeping it we are contributing to disinformation promoted by Ponomarev. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Or Ponomarev is part of the cover story for an SBU operation inside Russia designed to generate the idea that there is serious (and violent) opposition to the Putin government. 71.178.213.179 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to generate such idea. There is a "serious (and violent)" opposition to Putin in Russia, people who openly criticize Putin for being "too liberal", such as well known Igor Girkin and even Dugin according to many pundits. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FSB claims to have stopped 30 terror attacks in Russia by neo-nazis. Even Russians concede there exists violent and serious opposition to Putin. RKT7789 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Comment. I propose to wait before passing a verdict: if the organization does not prove itself in the future with some other action, merge it with an article about Dugina.PLATEL (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I have no opinion on whether to delete as such, may I ask how the subject being a hoax reported in outside media means that we can't cover it? Clearly, Sokal affair and Piltdown Man are okay per WP:NHOAX. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, sure. We have fairy tales and even Category:People whose existence is disputed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's comparable at all. In all the cases you've listed the hoax itself was notable, while NRA is just a footnote in the story of the killing of Darya Dugina. Całkiem anonimowy (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't really know anything about this organisation, we don't even know if it actually exists. Their alleged connection to the killing of Dugina is the only reason why we have heard of it. It's true there are plenty of cited sources, but pretty much all of them just relay what a single person, Ilya Ponomarev, has said. In my opinion, the information about the group and the allegations belongs in the article about the killing. Also, remember that deletion isn't irreversible. If the group becomes more notable, the article can be restored. Całkiem anonimowy (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for confirming it is notable ("It's true there are plenty of cited sources"). Wikipedia has many articles about things that are alleged to exist eg. Nazi gold train. All we are concerned is if the topic is notable ie. "plenty of cited sources". -- GreenC 20:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, all those sources just relay what a single person has said. This isn't the case with the Nazi gold train. On a side note, this style of discussion with out of context quotes and cheap zingers belongs on Reddit, not Wikipedia. We're supposed to argue our points in good faith. Całkiem anonimowy (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has a section for sources that suggest the NRA doesn't exist. Wikipedia allows for multiple points of view. Some think it exists, some don't. We report the controversy. The sources untangle if NRA exists or not, we are reporting what the sources say on this topic. -- GreenC 20:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I came to this article thinking this is a well-established organization. The notability here is completely dubious, it fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG and most importantly WP:1E, where even the person's article to whose death this "alleged" organization has been connected hinges on WP:INHERITED. Gotitbro (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are the only person in this AfD who says it fails GNG - an extreme claim given all the sources! Similar to the GNG claim, NORG is meaningless without an explanation as it meets everything in WP:SIRS. 1E is for people NRA is not a person. WP:INHERITED is simply an "argument to avoid during AfD" - nobody in this AfD has argued for Keep due to inheritance. It has nothing to do with inheritance at the content level, the essay specifically says so. -- GreenC 23:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources as to what exactly, that a claim was posted after the fact on a dissident run Telegram account using this name, does not make this organization notable regardless of excitable war coverage. 1E and INHERITED were intended to comment on Dugina from who's killing this article has been spun-off from (nothing in here which can't be merged back). Gotitbro (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro is correct, as I wrote before: The Guardian and DW do each have a dedicated article on Ponomarev's claims, but I am struggling to find this level of coverage by other RS (hence why I said mainly low-quality/tabloid etc sources), so I am not convinced about "significant coverage in reliable sources" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as per WP:GNG. Other RS if they mention it only give it a brief mention in their article about the killing in general, because there is nothing convincing about it. Mellk (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not every source requires to be a dedicated article. GNG only requires more than 1 source. And I find it hard to believe that every source but three (you forgot a third one that is dedicated) is a trivial mention. Much less what is found with Google, such as in other languages: Korean, Japanese, Danish, Swedish, French, German, etc.. countries all of which have an interest in this conflict and news. Do we really need to start down that road? It's a matter of common sense and quick Google searches to see how massive the coverage is. - GreenC 17:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is simply one sentence that says something like "according to Ponomarev, the killing was carried out by a group called National Republican Army, this claim cannot be verified" and this is it, I do not think the RS is addressing the subject directly and in detail. Of course because they are not tabloids. Mellk (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would appear that some editors voting here are coming from a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS stance, that this article being deleted will equate to purging or worse censoring and someone searching for this won't be able to find it here on WP. That is clearly not the case, anything that is here can be merged into Dugina's article (i.e. what is already not there) and WP:REDIRECTs exist. Not every minutiae about the war needs a standalone article. Gotitbro (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a reference page for those who seek the provenance of the alleged Russian "National Republican Army." Whether this is a real organization or a fictional one is irrelevant to whether this article exists or not. The fact is, there are copious references to this alleged organization (both mainstream media and social media) and, naturally, people will look to Wikipedia to find unbiased factual information about it; and, whether (or not) it is a real organization - or a fictional one. Wikipedia editors can therefore update this page as more information emerges and - most importantly - weigh the veracity (or not) of the actual existence of such organization.
  

Enquire (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (with cautionary note?) per ArcticCynda & Joewiki above. Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets our notability guidelines Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep General notability guidelines have been met. Some of those seeking deletion have very few edits on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you trying to insinuate here, because most of the IPs/new accounts here are voting for keep, besides your lack of explanation of how it meets GNG, remember it's not a vote. Mellk (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I came here to learn about this organisation, in terms of whether it is legit or not. The page was useful for me to determine that the organisation is noteworthy enough, even if we don't yet know if it is fact or fiction. 210.185.122.42 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LOSE. Firestar464 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organisation easily meets notability requirements, even if it might not exist. "It's fake" was never a reason to delete an article, or we would delete The Protocols of the Elders of Zion next. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 12:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The argument for deletion claiming non-notability isn’t addressing notability but existence. A flat earth article exists. Whether this NRA does exist or not, it’s notable for an abundance of reporting on it by reliable sources. This is not the place for Wikipedia:original research on whether it exists. Rely on reliable sources for that and document. mcornelius (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The verifiable existence (whatever 'existence' means) is not required for something to be notable. Moreover, the inability to verify Mr Ponomarev's claims is a separate issue that doesn't have any bearing on his making of the claims or the publication of a manifesto. Both are factual events, and the article makes it abundantly clear ('alleged', 'purported', 'cannot be confirmed') that it is not describing an organisation that has been proven to exist. The article is well balanced, factual, and well referenced, and all details are supported by existing, widespread reporting by respected outlets. 80.189.56.19 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - After having heard of the group in a video on the web, I specifically turned to Wikipedia to get an idea of what is currently known about them. Even the current status of "we currently have no information about them" is a valuable piece of information in and of itself. A non-existing page fails to unambiguously communicate even this bit of info. 2A0A:A546:3D3C:0:65ED:1864:BF8:8CB3 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LOSE. Firestar464 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject of the article is notable, judging by the preponderance of sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not making an !vote, but people should seriously (I beg you) have a look at WP:ATA. Firestar464 (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the size and capability of the organisation is certainly an open question, it has provided ample evidence of its existence - hence it not only deserves, but requires, a suitably-worded wikipedia page about it. wikifiveoh 23:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ample evidence? Everything is still based on Ponomarev's claims, there is no verification. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the moment - whether the organisation is fictitious or real, its claimed and disputed existence is widely discussed in international media from several different countries, satisfying WP:GNG. In the longer term, a merge into Ilya Ponomarev could be justified if no WP:RS'd evidence emerges of the organisation existing outside of Ponomarev's statements. The Russian Action Committee is only excluding Ponomarev from its upcoming Congress of Free Russia meeting; apparently it doesn't seem to see any point in excluding members of the would-be National Republican Army. Boud (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify/Wait per Super Dro basically, there is no need to jump the gun on subjects on this website and I feel editors fall into this trap too much. We are not the news so there is no need to be hasty on reporting a subject immediately. Lets wait and see if it's notable for inclusion then we can decide (and improve the article in the mean time as more information comes out). Tweedle (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This same argument can be made for non-Draft: no need to jump the gun drafting this well developed article that has dozens of hours of volunteer labor and huge active viewership. Let's wait and see, it can always be renominated later if it turns out this was a flash in the pan. Where you draw the line should be made not based on a belief editors make too many newsy article, but based on the specifics of this topic. Otherwise it is just making a point. -- GreenC 06:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close too much consensus for keep. we're getting nowhere having this still open. Great Mercian (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Keep - This is a case where primary sources can be used while maintaining care about how they are used. The article is about the alleged existence which is accurate.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't under the !vote rationale because the article includes the controversy over it's existence, but it's not about that, nor takes a position if it's accurate or not. Nor is this AfD a referendum about if its exists or not. Nor are primary sources a major issue since we report what people say "according to..", as quoted in secondary sources by journalists. -- GreenC 15:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What I am saying is that you can use all kinds of sources if you use them responsibly. As long as at least 2 of the sources are substantial and reliable enough to establish notability. Beyond that it is fine to use unconventional sources to write parts of the article, these can eventually be discussed if there are issues. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing to SPEEDY KEEP. The notability of the article topic is very obvious. To all the people voting "Delete it's speculation", or "delete it's fake". That does not matter. It does not matter if it is real or not, it is notable through the fact that it is obviously heavily noted in various sources, it has significant coverage and therefore notable no matter what it is.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable Andre🚐 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since this is an organization, WP:NORG criteria applies. We require multiple references that discuss the organization in detail, coverage must be deep or significant coverage and must contain "Independent Content". There are no references or sourcing that meets these criteria, nevermind identifying multiple references. Based on our guidelines, this topic fails NORG. Also none of the Keep !voters have identified any reasons based on our guidelines for keeping and none have identified sourcing that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:18, 30 August 2022 (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.