Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alley of Angels (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to War in Donbas (2014–2022). There appears to be consensus that an independent article currently is not warranted. Different redirect targets are suggested, but "War in Donbas (2014–2022)" seems to be the most logical one. In any case, if deemed necessary, the target can be changed after a local discussion on the appropriate talk page. Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of Angels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

No improvement since the last deletion - still no apparent notability, only RS is a BBC article that barely if at all mentions the monument. HappyWith (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dose the article mention the monument once. Seeing as it comes from 6 months before the monument it seems unlikely. Cakelot1 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete under G4 or Draftify as the user who moved out of draft space (@Raven9nine:) hadn't worked on the draft at all before moving it. Cakelot1 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Changing my vote to neutral.~~ After the changes made by Manyareasexpert and after I had a look for some more sources, I'm now unsure. The Ukraine version includes two interesting sources from (hadiach.city and BBC News Ukraine) and google scolar turns up some other articles in addition to that one added by Manyareasexpert ([1]) but as I can't access most of them right now it's impossible for me to say how in depth or reliable any of these are. I think it might be possible to develop the article in the direction that the rewrite is taking it. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked ~~all the sources~~ all I could access on GScholar and there are mentions only, not enough to show notability. BBC - mention only, no notability. We are only left with hadiach.city . Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note WP:GS/RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to get from there? Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It means you cannot make edits on articles with content related to Russo-Ukrainian War. Note that it also says non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area... Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations... You are not extended-confirmed. Mellk (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this discussion refers to a monument for perished children created in 2015- 7 years prior Rus- Ukraine war, and obviously was NOT a subject to sanctions of October, 2022.

And even so, remedies application for sanctioned topic do call for a discretion.

Specifically: "administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian_War#Remedies GA Brac (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be sufficient for a mention in an article about disinformation but not for a standalone article. So I do not see any difference compared to last time. Mellk (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Apologies for my indecisiveness) After looking more into the available sources I've struck my neutral above and un-struck my original !vote. There just doesn't seem enough in death RS available for an article. Might warrant a brief mention somewhere. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was created by a non-extended-confirmed editor and we have WP:GS/RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we need to expand sources beyond BBC.Memorial for 150+ children is there without a doubt, with names, dates, age from 10 months old to 16. This is very notable and the sources are out there if we want them 64.121.202.111 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First I'll point to WP:GS/RUSUKR discussed above and note you are not Extended Confirmed. Second, while I'm sure you can find WordPress blogs and propaganda channels taking about it, the operative word here is Reliable Sources. Your rewrite of the article is a perfect example of how little there is in RS. Half of your version is not even about the monument but an essay on civilian casualties (Many other articles discuss such topics already).

Just for the avoidance of doubt let's go through each of the sources you included in your version: 1) A literal mirror of wiki article (WP:CIRCULAR); 2/9) An article that does not discuss the subject at hand (and is from 6 months before it even existed); 3) random WordPress blog (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WordPress.com and WP:BLOG); 4/6) A Publisher of "pro-Russian propaganda"; 5) just an image?; 7) I can't find anything on RSN about this one, but I'm very sceptical from the entire look of this site; 8) an unrelated twitter post; 10 An unrelated RT article (see WP:RT．COM); 11) a news aggregator; 12) More twitter 13) Possibly reliable but only mentions the topic in passing; 14) and finally More WordPress. Non-of these demonstrate notability and very few are even reliable. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. These were the same problems that the original article had, too. I tried searching for RS back then before proposing the deletion, and there just weren't any - only a few scattered mentions. The topic simply isn't notable. HappyWith (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic at hand is not related to Russo-Ukraine war sanction list, it was never marked as such. GA Brac (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of fairness and avoidance of doubt Cakelot1, let's look at what you call "interesting sources" from hadiach.city and BBC News Ukraine

1. A Hadiach town unsourced leaflet commentary has no merit to be mentioned being a clear example of personal opinion.

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."[2]

Just a Note: Hadiach is a small 250K population town in Poltava region that was not a part of any described events in isolated Donbass area.

2. Next you have Ukraine BBC emotional article based on unknown, untraceable third parties relating their personal experiences in Spring'22.

Not only the BBC content is hyped, unsourced and unverifiable it has no relation to, or even mention of the topic at hand- "Alley of Angels".

3. Finally, the last irrelevant, unsourced, heavily biased, funded open source Slavonic papers journal blog (see Predatory publishing [3]) being continuously republished on the page to some dishonest editors liking [4]

The author thanking sponsors and publisher warning of unreliability totally evades your attention to propaganda channels:

"Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Canadian Association of Slavists. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information" [5]

Seeing double standards and open bias many question the integrity and professionalism of Wiki now days- the source that was once reliable

Sad GA Brac (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but RUSUKR covers 2014 to present, including eastern Ukraine conflict. You cannot comment here and these comments should be removed. Mellk (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry too that you strive to sensor and block users with no good reason.

This page is about memorial for children, not about using their graves for political insinuations. It should not be a controversial topic GA Brac (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to edit in the topic area, you must first become an extended confirmed user, which you are not. If you do not wish to follow this and continue with the edits, then you will be blocked for violating the restriction. Mellk (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really spend much more time here, not what I want to.

I will be brief on your brushing off sources you did not bother to investigate or even read:

1.Wiki content deemed to be reliable if supported by reliable sources. We can use and mirror such content

2. BBC article informs you of specific cases of children being killed by shelling in Donetsk in Nov, 2014. The monument was dedicated to the very same children perished in the 1st year of war, with their names engraved in stone. You could easily read those names and dates of death if you wanted to see how relevant that BBC article was.

3. Widely known awards winning Canadian reporter Eva Bartlet is most verifiable source on the ground, not a random blogger. I'm sure you did not bother to see video documentaries she published from world hot spots b/c you like White Helmets better.

4. Everything printed in Russian seems like "pro Russian propaganda", isn't it?

5. Hundreds of memorial images on this page in case you want a close up to make sure it's actually there and see that children been killed months before erection of monument (BBC article)

7. Ukrainian media source, large enough to publish stock and currency exchange rates. But you must be sceptical b/c nobody told you they exist+ the look of that weird language again

8. UNICEF Ukraine verified Twitter page is an official source that confirms a number of children killed by mines in Donbass. Very relevant to the monument built in their memory.

10. Mass use of butterfly mines in residential areas was widely recorded

and reported. Majority of victims are children who are being maimed if not killed. The whole discussion is about dead children of Donbass, isn't it?

Another confusion for some editors: it must all be a lie b/c RT published it.

12. Official Tweets are used as statements in a Court of Law.

13. There is actually a few paragraphs, including this: "The German Children of War association, which implements the Alley of Angels project, has set up stands at a rally in Berlin with photographs of children killed by Ukrainian soldiers in Donbass since 2014".

14. And more Eva Bartlett presenting photo/video documents on indiscriminate shelling of civilians of all ages in Donetsk.

You labeled all of them as a Word Press blog

All of it is relevant, reliable and more than enough for a brief page on a very notable, even in Europe, children's memorial.

Yet you prefer to run with some predatory pub lunacy you find interesting for what I think is agenda politics, double standard and bias.

I don't think your opinion is valid.

I'd like to see this page to be expanded with current and other sources out there which I personally did not researched to potential.

The language can be def improved.

P.S. This project is under no restrictions, anyone can revise and publish. GA Brac (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a matter of whether it exists, that’s pretty obvious. It’s a matter of whether it’s notable. HappyWith (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are not reliable, they are user generated WP:UG. If there are reliable sources in them then cite those. As for your claims that your presenting the background by using unrelated tweets and articles that don't relate to the topic at hand, that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We need secondary sources to show that there is any reason this should be included per WP:DUE. Also, by Widely known awards winning Canadian reporter, do you mean "Russian based American Canadian activist, commentator, and blogger who has propagated conspiracy theories in connection to the Syrian civil war" who has "has been criticised for spreading Kremlin propaganda and misinformation". Somehow I don't think that would pass the exception of "established subject-matter expert" at WP:BLOGS.

As too the sources in the article they aren't good or in depth. The BBC one is probably the best and it isn't in depth. That's why I'm advocating deletion because I don't think this is a notable topic. The topic is "Alley of Angels" not "Child casualties in the war". None of the sources presented here or in that are in the article are Reliable and in depth enough to show notability. You haven't presented any, I haven't found any, and the article will be deleted unless we find multiple such sources. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this awesome research. HappyWith (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per accurate research and sound arguments perpetrated by Cakelot1. Saintstephen000
Redirect, possibly to On conducting a special military operation or to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), merging that content in there. I have no doubt that scholarship in the next few years will make this notable, but for now it is not: the sourcing is simply not there, and whatever can be gleaned from "news" sources is simply too partisan to accept--we should not be using Ukrainian government sources or Russian state propaganda. [edit conflict] NO, do not delete: redirect. This content should be preserved. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a memorial opened in 2015, 7 years before the Russian invasion. Redirecting to any of these articles would be an anachronism. If it is redirected to a broader topic, it should be redirected to War in Donbas (2014–2022), which is the actual context of the memorial. MarioGom (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly Accusations of genocide in Donbas, Although there isn't really any content that could be merged into any of these targets (for lack of realy any sources) imo. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War in Donbas (2014–2022) per my comment above. MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2023 (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.