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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion has been provided. Please discuss on the article talk page instead. (non-admin closure) ansh.666 17:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White-blue-white flag (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)

Procedural nomination. This article was determined for merging into 2022 anti-war protests in Russia in a tense and exciting game of two halves recently (9 !votes for keep, 8 for merge, 4 for delete, and 2 for draftify). After merging, it was unmerged and considerably expanded. Discussion on the article's talk page would suggest a snowball keep, and in my own opinion, it should now be kept. For procedural reasons I am bringing it here for full discussion and potential ratification or rejection of the earlier nomination's outcome. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The closer of the original AfD suggested to just seek a new consensus on the article's talk page(s) (see User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/March#White-blue-white_flag). These discussions happen(ed) here:

• Talk:2022_anti-war_protests_in_Russia#White-blue-white_flag
• Talk:White-blue-white_flag#Notability

So, we would not have needed a new AfD, just someone uninvolved formally closing these discussions.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. We don't need yet another discussion, as the outcome is obvious: The article is meanwhile far beyond our notability threshold per WP:GNG and has plenty of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. All participants of both above mentioned discussions voted to Keep the article. It is a waste of time and resources to have yet another discussion. So, lets snow close the discussion so we can continue working on contents rather than spending energy on unnecessary formalisms.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per above as article plentifully demonstrates both notability, and significance well beyond being relegated to a subsection lost in a large article elsewhere. Yadsalohcin (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The sources for this article satisfy WP:GNG; as such the articlce should not be merged. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep No question the coverage of the topic meets GNG and warrants an article at this point. No need to drag out the procedure for a full week. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 4 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.