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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lugansk parliamentary republic[edit]

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

Delete - Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball, this 'parliamentary republic' was declared by a group of armed ~~terrorists~~ militants occupying a police headquarters holding hostages. All content on the situation is already covered on 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, no need for a split. Львівське (говорити) 15:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement delete - While the initiator of this request may have used somewhat bombastic language, he is quite correct in that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and furthermore, we cannot give WP:UNDUE weight. This feels as if it is a WP:POVFORK. RGloucester — ☎ 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which part was bombastic? Armed rebels have indeed taken the SBU building and are holding hostages and have planted explosives in the building. This is the Die Hard definition of terrorism, I don't think I exaggerated. --Львівське (говорити) 16:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, 'terrorism' is in the eye of the beholder. It is hard to remain neutral while using it, as one would see by reading WP:TERRORIST. Evoking 'terrorism', regardless of the facts on the ground, isn't a good way to advance one's arguments here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, I only intended to use it in the most literal sense. Didn't mean to inject hyperbole. --Львівське (говорити) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and RGloucestor. Adequately represented in the relevant articles, no need for a separate one. § DDima 16:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep article as it seems to be notable. Keep at least until the situation is proven false (or not). The Principality of Sealand was formed illegally, is located in a smaller area (a sea platform), and is "inhabited" by less than 50 persons. Sealand is unrecognized by all countries in the world. Yet it still has an article. Do you want to delete it as well? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, lets start with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't matter what else exists. Secondly, your comparison is moot. The difference with regard to Sealand, and any other small little republics that may have article for whatever reason, is that, for those, we have historical distance. For those, there has been coverage in reliable third party scholarly sources, that establish that events were notable in the context of history. We do not have that distance here, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we have no right to 'determine' the future before it has happened. As it stands now, an independent article for this supposed entity is WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on all counts, as well it should be noted that Sealand has de facto control and recognition; these guys aren't claiming just the SBU building, but the entire province, which they do not have de facto control over. If we're going to compare otherstuff, then at least let it be apples to apples.--Львівське (говорити) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – move to Lugansk People's Militia – Of all the recent Rebellions in Ukraine this one is likely to be the most bloody. The rebels are "armed to the teeth" from the start. Local hospitals are reportedly ordered to prepare 500 extra beds in anticipation of the expected "anti-terror" operation. As to the name of the article, I have no idea what the people now controlling Lugansk call themselves or their political entity. (I did note that they had replaced Ukrainian symbols with Soviet ones.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"likely" --Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), we can not assume that Kiev will be able to take back control of the region. Until we have proof of the failure of this so-called republic, we should keep the article. And eventually expend it (or not). Let's wait, people here are too hasty. Of course, if you are Ukrainian, I understand your hostility: your country is collapsing. But this is not a valid reason to delete a potentially good article. Canadianking123 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev never lost control of the region… RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these self-declared republic articles are getting out of hand. I propose either merging them all with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, or perhaps creating a new article called something like 2014 Ukrainian secession movements, which would also include sections about Crimea, Donetsk, and Kharkov. Orser67 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine was recently revamped to take care of that. RGloucester — ☎ 01:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "a planned republic to be declared" ?? This just boggles the mind. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of possible future events. --> WP:Crystalball --92.224.199.242 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Republic is now proclaimed, assembly is in full session by revolutionary Lugansk militia, who is in full control. Notable unrecognized state, many references. Seraborum (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sockpuppet. --Nug (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Some of the sources look to be unreliable and all appear to be pro-Russian. Article also violates WP:UNDUE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And where are these flags and coats of arms coming from? This is turning into a fantasy for some editors, they haven't even declared their position yet and already people are drawing flags? Delete this junk ASAP. --Львівське (говорити) 18:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the "announced" bit as not being in the source given, this republic according to the source has been "planned" not announced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:Crystalball and WP:Advocacy. --Nug (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. I've never been a fan of starting those content forks on each and every single issue of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, no evidence of independent notability.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:Crystalball Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. But unfortunately no independent source found that verify such things.A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The process similar to the present civil strife in Ukraine happened in Yugoslavia that fell apart in 1990s, and the right of self-determination of people prevailed. Also, Republic of Prekmurje existed for only 6 days, almost 100 years ago, and we have article with this title. Should not be removed OR renamed. Slovinan (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per my prior statements at the deletion page of Donetsk People's Republic. Once again, this entity may not be extremely important and/or legal, but it has reliable sources supporting it's current/past existence and it is notable as it is tied into the recent events in Ukraine. However, this one needs much more detail on the who/what/whys. --Therexbanner (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current/past existence? This never did exist in the first place, the source says that they planned to declare a "Lugansk Parliamentary Republic", how is that existing? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was my assumption that if something (esp. an independent state, in this case) is announced given the context & the overall situation in the country, it is noteworthy to include, whether it is legal or not. The entity exists in the minds of its proponents, as highlighted by the numerous RS. The sources say "they plan" not "they planned", which in my opinion confirms it as a current event. Overall, the situation is still developing (the armed protestors remain in control) and additional sources will appear. There is no reason to delete an entity claiming an area the size of Belgium, created as a result of an armed conflict as part of one of the most noteworthy events in world history (I'm referring to all of the events in Ukraine over the past few months.)--Therexbanner (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the occupiers claim to control a country the size of Belgium if they do not actually control or at least have a legitimate claim to the overwhelming majority of the land. Also, if your argument is that we should keep this article because it might become notable someday, I would suggest userfying it until such a day occurs instead of keeping a non-notable article in the mainspace.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget userfying, which is now obsolete. This is an ideal use for the new draft namespace. 'Move to Draft' is supposed to be a valid AFD result, and I would not be opposed to such a move, though I doubt the article will ever need to be revived. RGloucester — ☎ 03:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about a country that nobody has even proclaimed yet? Just plain silly. WP:Crystalball fully applies.--Staberinde (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Enough is enough. We do not need an article about every single Ukrainian building that gets occupied by protestors for a couple of days. Calling these occupations legitimate countries is a gross misrepresentation of the word. Likewise, the entire focus of the article is on a country a group is planning on forming, which is a violation of both WP:Crystal and WP:MADEUP. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a lesson to some POV-driven editors lately in Ukraine-related articles, who put their ideology & beliefs before the facts, I support the removal of this article. The main and fundamental difference with the Donetsk People's Republic & Kharkhiv People's Republic articles is that while this two have been in fact declared (wether we like it or not, wether we consider its proclamation valid or not), the "Lugansk parliamentary republic" has not been declared yet, so as other editors say, its ridiculous to have an article about an entity that doesnt exist neither in theory or in practice. Thats why the "Lugansk parliamentary republic" article should be deleted while the DPR & KPR articles should be kept.--HC PUNXKID 17:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or let's create the Moscow Parliamentary Republic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's a notable event according to every future history book - a group of people organize and start a fight for independence. It's not just an "idea" but in a way a fact (not as much if the state will survive or not, but that such an attempt was made). How come it's ok to have an article about the Ukrainian People's Republic, but not about that state? Let's be neutral and judge events by their notability rather by which side are you on. Ukraine gained independence from the USSR by "a bunch of people making a declaration", Ireland gained independence by "a bunch of separatists (according to the UK)" Who started a war based on their right for self determination. It's the same story with that state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every future history book huh? If there was some way for you to look into the future and prove that yes this will be notable then maybe okay but for now no its not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UPR was internationally recognized and lasted for 4 years. Ukraine was not just a declaration in a building, but by the state, same with Ireland or all your other examples. You need to understand legal or factual levels of independence, and if a proclaimed state has governance and territorial control. As it stands, the Lugansk Republic is a police station and nothing more. --Львівське (говорити) 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The time's not yet ripe for this article to exist. Even in the best case scenario, that the Lugansk Parliamentary Republic becomes an actual real, notable thing, it's not one now. We're putting together an encyclopedia, not participating in a race to be the first to acknowledge a theoretical state. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:14, 17 April 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.