Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novorossiya (confederation)

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. Discussion regarding recategorization, a page move, etc. can continue on the article's talk page. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novorossiya (confederation)[edit]

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

For generating discussion, I'll throw out that this article on an idea (not a real entity) be deleted. What do you think? Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:N does not require things to exist to be notable. Wikipedia is filled with articles on ideas (ie Korean reunification). All that is required is significant coverage by reliable sources. Novorossiya has been widely covered by RS and as such is notable enough to warrant an article. Of course we must be careful to present it for what it is, but that is a question of WP:DUE and not WP:N. TDL (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korean reunification is a good parallel, an idea, but not a state. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – well summed up by TDL. One of my favorite somewhat-parallel examples of this is the Principality of Sealand. Deadbeef 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability doesn't require existence. Enough WP:RS asserts its notability. AadaamS (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least it as a reference for the "Novorossiya concept", not necessarily an existing political entity. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As noted, it's covered by RS. However I have do have a problem with the way that the article is structured, with sections on Demographics and Economics sections, like a Wikipedia article on an actually existing country. It should hew more closely to what the sources say about it. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, from the title to the bottom it reads like a country, but it is a concept. Is it better to try to fix this under a new title or add relevent info to Novorossiya? Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has already some news sources (reliable) that explains about this unrecognized political entity. I also agree per who agrees to keep it. Why delete it when it already has RELIABLE SOURCES?--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this article is an abomination and untruthful representation.
The post is pre-emptive there is no conferederation as yet - there is a war and a "break away state - not having any recognition from any world body UN etc.
The map in question is not correct
one only needs to look at the following videoand see how these "novorossiyan" conduct themselves whil interogating dying soldier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V1RNxKXIbQ

looking forward to your comments --Ozikozak2 (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but recategorize: it's currently presented as a state or quasi state, but in reality it's just a proposed confederation that never really stuck between two unrecognized non states. It has notable content, I guess, but maybe this should be refashioned as concept on par with an new Islamic Caliphate or New World Order, and not a real state or even a real confederation of entities. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but recategorize per LeVivsy, Legacypac, and Margin1522's observations as to its not existing 'in the real world'. The current TITLE doesn't correlate with RS, nor does the article content clearly differentiate between actual events and the political concept. In short, it needs a thorough overhaul. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. Close this discussion. Royal Mate1 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' as what? The brunt of this discussion revolves around its existence, not whether RS have referred to it in some form or another, but the fact that it is being represented as being a real region. Notability is an issue unto itself, and is immaterial to the actual content of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move to Novorossiya (political concept) initiated. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support requested move. Per my comment on the article talk page, confederation implies a real state (as has been noted by a number of users who've commented on this page already), and I see this alternative proposal as appropriate per NDESC as disambiguation to distinguish it from the historical region. "Novorossiya (confederation)" is not supported by any RS indicating it as being any form of COMMONNAME. Renaming would certainly make for a good starting point for disentangling the content to fit the scope of the subject. The only other possibilities occurring in RS are probably more CONCISE, but lean towards being identified as POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - With the amount of reliable sources why would this be deleted? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Novorossiya – Most of the content here is a fiction. "Novorossiya" does not functionally exist, and even proponents of the idea are saying as much. Given this, there is no reason to seperate this concept from the main article on the subject. Delete this article, and create a small section in the "Novorossiya" article for modern "concept". RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't the ones in charge though anymore, also why do we have United Armed Forces of Novorossiya which is full of RS connecting this as a real thing? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is in charge of "Novorossiya", because "Novorossiya" doesn't exist. The LPR and DPR leaderships do exist, but they do not agree on most things. In fact, the LPR itself has had significant problems with infighting between different factions in recent days. I couldn't tell you why we have that article, because it isn't representative of the reality on the ground. Nothing about the various separatist factions is "united". "Full of RS" is a great overstatement. RGloucester — ☎ 04:15, 13 January 2015 (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.