Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donbass Development Center

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 delete. Sandstein 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donbass Development Center

[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 claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite significant to me, with plenty of references, none of which I can read. Is this a political nomination? Rathfelder (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article sources demonstrate this meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 16:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a leaflet (advertisement) of a not significant initiative which is based in occupied Donetsk. There is a reason to consider this article as a covert political campaign aimed into English speaking world. --Synhuliak (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article based entirely on original sources is basically original research. I'm also highly suspicious of what appears to be whitewashing here. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent third-party coverage found in Google search, which returned just one page of primary sourcing (charity sites, etc.) Article was created by a single-purpose account solely as a promotional piece and has remained in this state since its creation four years ago. It namedrops organizations such as UNICEF in a failed attempt at establishing notability while linking to literally nothing else. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:57, 18 October 2020 (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.