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. Sandstein 12:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

At this point, this is a mix of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Most of the article consists of relaying news reports of sexual crimes, very loosely tied together with limited statements by a couple of Ukrainian officials. While I would not be surprised if this did eventually become separately notable, it is just not there yet as this moment; it is far too soon.

This article just doesn't necessarily have the board macro-scale needed to cross the threshold of WP:NOTNEWS yet. Curbon7 (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Events, Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Overview by OHCHR that is nearly a month old; wide international coverage.
The claim of relaying news reports of sexual crimes, very loosely tied together is incorrect. The topic is tied together in IV.D. of the 26 March 2022 report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which uses research by the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) to provide an overview of sexual violence in this invasion. The OHCHR report is 24 days old, from before the liberation of Bucha and the Kyiv region, so it's not just headline news, and it was published prior to the biggest headline news. It's true there are some individual cases listed, because these attracted wide media attention. The topic is not a strict subset of war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, because sexual violence during an armed conflict does not always qualify as a war crime (for example, the sexual violence attributed to Ukrainians by OHCHR/HRMMU; of currently disputed notability on the talk page). Moreover, sexual violence in an armed conflict is a specific (illegal) aspect of wars that is (unfortunately) typically significant on its own.
This recent version of the article has sources showing wide international coverage in WP:RSes specifically focussing on this topic: The New York Times; BBC News; The Guardian; The Washington Post; The Independent; The Times; The Scotsman. Boud (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current version also includes notability from The Quint, which together makes tri-continental coverage (N.America, Europe, Asia). The Quint (new to me) appears to be a good quality investigative journalism news site, receiving good comments from many sources, per its Wikipedia article. Boud (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and Human Right Watch are raising Sexual Violence and rape as an issue in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Both these sources have been referenced in the article. Therefore believe believe the article meets the criteria required for a Wikipedia article. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand the scope to Sexual violence in the Russo-Ukrainian War. For example, Izolyatsia prison is a documented, notorious location used for systemic violence including sexual violence by Russian proxies, and sexual violence has been committed by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea, and documented by the UN.[1] —Michael Z. 12:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding the scope would be quite a good idea, I can get behind that. Curbon7 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A recognized feature of the Russian military behavior in Ukraine. According to several analyses, despite being underreported, it can actually be of historical scale.--Kober^Talk 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sadly a real scope in this war. Good sourcing, within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BobNesh (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extensive coverage in reliable sources. NOT too soon to be talking about this Chronotime (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, with in-depth coverage. Has attracted substantial international attention. Somewhat disappointing nomination to be honest. To have had a deletion template at the top of this article for several days would not cause a casual reader to reflect well on us. Think it would have been much more helpful for the nom to discuss initial concerns on the talkpage or another forum. AusLondonder (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, and I don't believe it's WP:TOOSOON at all, although the article will certainly be improved as time goes on and more information comes out. --WestCD (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of coverage in RS, clearly notable. Volunteer Marek 12:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage obviously meets GNG as demonstrated above and through the article's sourcing. No reason to delete. Samsmachado (talk) 00:49, 23 April 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.