Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military units in the 2014 Crimean crisis

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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of military units in the 2014 Crimean crisis

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

First, no reliable third party sources consider in details the entire list. Second, this list is not notable ehough to be a separate article. All supported by sources information from this list can be moved to the main article 2014 Crimean crisis. No reason for the story to be divided and partly duplicated in so many articles. Debi07 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many reliable sources, topic is large and different. OccultZone (Talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just put those there. Some units are difficult to ascertain, so I placed qualifiers. Perhaps this should be merged to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Wikipedia may end up merging that into the crisis article anyway, but the amount of military detail there should be decided centrally.--Martin Berka (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The subject of the list is not defined. Should the list include all units which existed on the territory of Crimea during period of conflict? Much of that existed legally by Russia-Ukraine agreement. Or the list should include only units which were involved in active conflict? Or anything else? 2) I do not see any sources beyond several newspapers. Even livejournal.com is in the list of sources of this article. To have a separate wiki article, we need as sources also more serious research articles which treat this subject. 3) Sources are very vague, see for example "Some 'local' forces in Crimea look a lot like Russian military" [1]. They do not say anything definite. Such style is good for a newspaper but not as a source for enciclopedia. For these reasons I think we could move this small amount information from this list to 2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine and delete the article. Otherwise we need to define the subject of the list, so that we can have a definite rule to decide if any particular unit should or not be included in the list. Then we need to find reliable sources, preferably research articles published after conflict, which consider the subject (at least some sources should discuss the list of units as a separate subject) according to the definition. Debi07 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The presence of the article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is itself disputed. A lot of content from the latter should be merged into this one instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination was never properly transcluded; I have done it now, and we need to discuss at least one week (barred WP:SNOW outcome).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is not an article for just now, guys. We can continue to improve and extend and reference it for up to 15 plus years, or however long WP is around... Just consider the articles covering British and Argentine units in the Falklands War. This conflict is just as notable, if a bit murky at the moment. It is unquestionably notable, as much as any other military order of battle article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buckshot: an order of battle is a perfectly viable topic for an article, and we have dozens of them - some at FA level. List of orders of battle provides a partial listing of similar articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buckshot, Orders of Battle are important details to understand a battle and the preparation for it; therefore we also do such list for all other relevant battles/military events. noclador (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (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.