Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
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. While consensus is not a vote, a majority support either unequivocally keeping, or keeping or merging, while only a few support merging. One editor raised a concern with the target of a merger, and as such, consensus at this point appears to be in favor of keeping the article. Go Phightins! 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volnovakha checkpoint attack

Volnovakha checkpoint attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It would seem that the article fails to suffice WP:NOTABILITY. It is one of the various Ukraine related articles that are being created daily. WP is NOTNEWS and although notable at the time of the event we cannot create separate articles for every single checkpoint attack throughout this crisis. I appreciate that there was loss of life, however I don't feel that this alone is sufficient for a separate article. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the best option. Lunch for Two (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might be messy. The Donetsk People's Republic article is already crowded with a lot about the history of this conflict, mostly because the split proposal (to article about the conflict and article about DPR) has failed. It it hadn't, maybe then it would have been a good idea to merge this to the article about the conflict. Feon {t/c} 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should keep it for now. Although Wikipedia isn't a news website, it does include articles about attacks and ambushes. It may turn out to be non-notable, but for now we should let it stand. We can delete it later is necessary. B14709 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per B14709. It was notable at the time as the incident that resulted in the highest number of Army fatalities in the conflict to-date, and is still known as that, and it has been reported enough in the mainstream media. EkoGraf (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable event with wide press coverage and many casualities. NickSt (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would just like to remind everyone that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and that press coverage is not the final arbiter of notability. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities which is not a sufficient basis for inclusion on Wikipedia per its policy (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), and a military battle that has resulted in the largest loss of life for one side in an ongoing conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This event is no Siege of Sloviansk or 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes in its notability. That the media is no longer reporting this suggests that this is of insufficient notability. Furthermore, this is one of a series of articles (Rubizhne Attack 2014 Kharkiv RSA raid Kramatorsk Ambush List of states that declared independence during the unrest in East Ukraine) all created by the same user that end up being redirected due to lack of notability. We cannot have an individual article on every single occurrence that is happening in Ukraine. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they continue to report on it when it was a one-day battle? If you check other war articles you would see you got hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on battles that happened only during one day. And I agree we do not need an article for every single occurrence, but this was not just simply an occurrence. Also, the track record of another editor on his article redirects isn't really an argument. In any case, we will see what is the opinion of other editors. EkoGraf (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2014 kept.
Again that is simply not true. This is just one of many skirmishes happening in East Ukraine at the moment. In the last few days we have had a more serious skirmish, which is of greater notability than this incidence yet is nonetheless being incorporated into the parent articles, which is where this too belongs. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i understand what is happening. This article should be kept or merged--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a merge/redirect is most suitable in this case. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppinions so far - 5 for keep, 2 for merger, 1 for keep or merger. EkoGraf (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notable event with significant media coverage.--HCPUNXKID 16:04, 30 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.
Categories
Table of Contents