Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic

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. I realize this is a controversial article but the consensus I see among participating editors is that there are sources that support the notability of this council. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic

[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 significant coverage in independent sources. Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability. Panam2014 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even with de facto states, national and provincial parliaments are ipso facto notable. That is, it is common sense that this is a core encyclopedic topic (WP:5P1). Curbon7 (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a guideline that says so? Never mind; it’s irrelevant. The DLNR are neither nations nor provinces. They are military-civil administrations in partly occupied parts of Ukraine during a war. Their Potemkin parliaments are ipso facto not notable. —Michael Z. 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen The reason it has no coverage is because it is not a real democratic assembly. The details of a pantomime parliament are not notable, ipso facto or otherwise. Its existence and role can be covered well enough in parent articles. —Michael Z. 21:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to WP:OSE, the Supreme People's Assembly is not exactly a real democratic assembly either. While obviously this is illegal, this parliament has functioned just as alike any other parliament for the past 8 years. I do not see how this is in principle different than the parliaments for any other partially recognized states. Curbon7 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this parliament has functioned just as alike any other parliament for the past 8 years
sources? Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Curbon7 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You and I can argue about the assembly’s conduct or its commonalities with some other one, but that is immaterial (and I would not bother). My point is that reliable sources have ignored it, and it is not notable – because, by way of explanation and in my opinion, it is practically meaningless. One could try to counter my point with some independent reliable sources . . . —Michael Z. —Michael Z. 16:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Democratic or not, there are enough independent sources discussing this for it to merit an article. WP:RGW applies here. JeffUK (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sources, please? Those in article do not meet WP:GNG. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clear WP:GNG pass. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason stated was No significant coverage in independent sources. Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability, not "I dont like it". Simply saying clear WP:GNG pass while providing no sources is not enough. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK, Devonian Wombat, and Curbon7: AfD are not a vote. You must provide independent sources. Panam2014 (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article already contains such sources such as this and this (Interfax is not the greatest source, but for non-controversial statements such as "this parliament exists and does things" it is clearly sufficient), there is also the litany of sources available at 2014 Donbas general elections for example, as well as sources such as this in Al Jazeera. And this was just with a cursory English-language source, a search in Ukrainian or Russian would doubtlessly provide much more. If you think they don't provide SIGCOV then the burden is also on you to explain your reasoning. NOTAVOTE applies both ways. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/rebel-backed-elections-in-eastern-ukraine.html - how many sentences cover the subject?
https://www.interfax.ru/world/464849 - isn't it a news article? Is it even a secondary source? for non-controversial statements such as "this parliament exists and does things" it is clearly sufficient - WP:GNG requires significant coverage.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/8/separatist-run-donetsk-lifts-suspension-on-the-death-sentences - how many sentences there are on a subject? Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Devonian Wombat: interfax is an unreliable source. It must be rejected. Panam2014 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There are BBC articles about the same thing anyway[1][2]. Mellk (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many sentences do cover the subject there? Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, you are WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion by repeating the same thing over and over until we get exasperated. Curbon7 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my arguments weren't clear enough for you. The point is that there are sources on a subject provided, but the coverage is not significant enough.
For example, https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2015/09/150905_donbass_purhin_sacked
have 10 mentions of "народный совет", but most of them - 6 - are just names of persons positions - Глава "народного совета" ДНР, должности председателя Народного совета ДНР, руководителя аппарата "народного совета ДНР" and so on. Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is directly about the subject, not a passing mention. Mellk (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it is. But is the coverage significant enough? What can we learn on a topic from the article? Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is something that Ukrainian sources also cover[3][4]. Mellk (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but these 2 are news sources and could not even be considered secondary. BBC is better in this regard but still.
There are some more but the content is not available to me.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-222-4_7
https://books.google.cz/books?id=ECBXEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Unrecognized+Entities:+Perspectives+in+International,+European+and&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=parliament&f=false Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what a secondary source is? Mellk (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so what do you want to call them? Tertiary sources? Mellk (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are mostly Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are quite clearly secondary sources. Mellk (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources are not going to be in English. Claiming this is nn because of a lack of Eng sources is fallacious. These sources in Russian/Ukrainian seem pretty good, I think [5][6][7][8]. Don't misunderstand me, I support Ukraine as well, but it is imperative that we keep our biases in check when editing Wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I do think we need to do a better job on that article of reporting the controversy, "disputed" does not go nearly far enough to describe how widely this council is described as 'unrecognised', and that its members have been internationally sanctioned etc. I'll take a look at improving it shortly. JeffUK (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:GNG requires sources that are independent of the subject.
http://papacoma.narod.ru/books/kraev_sborniky/actual_problems_2019.pdf#page=93 - М.В. Руденко, депутат Народного Совета ДНР II созыва, ГОУ ВПО «Донецкий национальный университет» - not an independent source
http://repo.donnu.ru:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/4756/1/3341_A7U0.pdf#page=16 - ГОУ ВПО «Донецкий национальный университет» - not an independent source
https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/11/3/7043027/ - news article
https://dni24.com/ukrnews/11048-novosti-donecka-narodnyy-sovet-prosit-rossiyu-vvesti-mirotvorcheskiy-kontingent.html - news, not reliable. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Above you asked for sources that show "this parliament has functioned just as alike any other parliament for the past 8 years". I provided sources that show as much. Stop moving the goalposts. My original point (that this falls under WP:5P1 as a common-sense encyclopedic topic) stands. Curbon7 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So in http://papacoma.narod.ru/books/kraev_sborniky/actual_problems_2019.pdf#page=93 we can read 14 мая 2014 г. был образован первый, в полном смысле этого слова, законодательный орган государственной власти ДНР – Верховный Совет - who made it, and how? Were there any elections? Haven't heard of any. These sources are not reliable and should not be used to prove anything. Now let's concentrate on WP:GNG. Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These sources seem to contradict each other on basic facts, such as whether the “DLNR” are legitimate staes, for example. I find it hard to believe that they can all be considered reliable. I wonder if reliable sources have been citing the papers published in the heavily censored “DNR,” which could demonstrate that they are not WP:FRINGE. —Michael Z. 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First source is very reliable, at least. Государственный переворот, произошедший в Киеве в феврале 2014 г. ... Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that sources contradict each other is not a reason to delete the article, nor is the fact different sources take different views any indication of their reliability; we should describe the controversy. Anyone following the conflict will expect pro-Russian sources to call DLNR legitimate states, while other sources will not. JeffUK (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As shown above, there are various reliable sources which cover the subject directly and it passes WP:GNG. Mellk (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but all sources presented so far were challenged as not being independent or having not enough coverage, as required by GNG. Please correct me by pointing out on sources meeting GNG if I'm wrong. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources cover the subject in detail. Note: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. You can keep asking how many sentences, but it is already clear GNG is met in this regard. Mellk (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which source you are talking about? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I mentioned on top of current sourcing. Some more Ukrainian ones which again show significant coverage: [9][10][11][12] Mellk (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally just 3 sentences at all in first 3 sources provided.
The last one https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/war-against-ukraine/donetsk-proclaims-itself-parliamentary-republic-with-two-official-languages-348155.html - again, how many sentences are on subject there? Here are all of them: “The DPR Supreme Council is the parliament of the republic, a regularly operating supreme and only legislative (representative) body of state power in the DPR,” according to the Constitution passed by the DPR Supreme Council on May 14 and published on the republic’s official website. ... The parliament also forms and disbands the Council of Ministers, “save for such resolutions with respect to the DPR Defense Minister, the head of the Security Service and the Interior Minister.” - clear GNG meet? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a source must write an arbitrary number of sentences to meet GNG. Notice how this is just you who says this? Mellk (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that 2 sentences is not enough to meet GNG still stands, right? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are four different Kyiv Post articles in total there and you are trying to reduce this to 2 sentences. But I am sure that you with 61 mainspace edits know best about GNG. Mellk (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats right. As said before regarding "four different Kyiv Post articles", There is literally just 3 sentences at all in first 3 sources provided.
A source dedicating 2 sentences on a subject does not cover the subject enough to meet GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is the main topic here and this is alongside the other articles that write more. But sure, nothing will ever have enough sentences. Mellk (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some others: [13][14] Mellk (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A second one is just news, but the first one could have some attention: Talk:People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 1#Lead change suggestion Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as Curbon7 said, you are just bludgeoning at this point repeating the same thing over and over. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The dozens of reliable journalistic sources cited by previous contributors to this discussion seem sufficient to establish that this institution is a notable fiction. Furius (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donetsk_People's_Republic#Legislature. Keeping this as a separate page does not make sense. Section "Legislature" of page Donetsk_People's_Republic is now empty. Someone probably copy-pasted the content from there into this page. Please place it where it belongs. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly a divide among participants plus a vote for a Merge. Maybe another week might help solidify opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not a vote. While many claims there were made about how many sources cover article subject in detail, and many sources were presented, all of them (except one) were challenged as not being independent, or not covering article subject enough to meet GNG. Only one independent secondary source worth discussing was presented so far - https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/28167484.html . Participants are welcomed to discuss the reliability of a blogger from that article, and if it is enough to meet GNG. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop commenting and just let the AfD take it's course. It's clear what you're trying to do. Curbon7 (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2022 (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.