Talk:Peace to Luhanshchyna

Delete

I think that we have tot delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier Cussó Bordes (talk • contribs)

Merging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Do not merge. MaterialWorks _(talk) 22:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

---

The article has been around for a year, yet did not improve a bit. It fails several Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:V and WP:NOTE. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Merge  Extrapolating from the conduct of elections in the now-defunct Russian-sponsored “republic,” and the history of its leader in the Russian government, this was likely a political front for the Kremlin. The article looks like a stub for an ordinary political party, but is lacking in that it has no context or discussion. If merged into the main article, at least the information will have some context. —Michael Z. 16:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't it be merged into Luhansk People's Republic, rather than Donetsk People's Republic? Currently, the merge proposal is for the latter article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Duh, oops. Thanks for fixing this.  —Michael Z. 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I will cast my vote as Do not merge - Regardless of the political status of either the LPR self-declared entity or of this political party "Peace to Luhanshchyna", political parties are usually listed as their own separate articles. This isn't just limited to major political parties but also to very small political parties. Basically, a political party can generally be of any size, any significance, any seriousness, any legitimacy, and it can have its own article. That's generally the norm on Wikipedia. With that being said, a political party has to be notable in order to have its own article, which means it has to have significant coverage by secondary reliable sources. If a party is really small, it might not be regarded as notable enough, or if a party is not legally registered with the national government, it might be classified as something different, e.g. "organisation" or "movement". Regarding this Peace to Luhanshchyna party, I believe that it is notable enough to have its own article. Whether the LPR itself is notable enough is a different question; yes, the LPR is notable enough to have its own article, but one of the changes that I was previously (and still am) opposed to was splitting the LPR into "LPR (2014-2022)" and "LPR (Russia)", on the charge of being a POV-fork. I don't believe that the Peace to Luhanshchyna party qualifies as a POV-fork in the same sense. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Can you justify its notability according to WP:N? —Michael Z. 16:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  If it exists, then it's probably notable. Even if it's a fraudulent organisation. There are plenty of fraudulent political parties around the world that have Wikipedia articles. They just need to be reported on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NRV: “no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists.”  —Michael Z. 18:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please do us the dignity of glancing at the guideline I bothered to link to, before adding more noise to the discussion.  —Michael Z. 18:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  The main problem I see with merging this article about a political party into the article about the LPR is that I believe that the information about the political party will become lost amongst the main information about the LPR, and it may very well end up getting deleted by another user in the future inadvertently. The contents of this article simply aren't suitable to be streamlined into the article about the LPR. You may as well delete this article outright. It would have the same effect. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  If it’s not an encyclopedic subject, and the consensus were to delete information about it, then how is that a problem?

  Anyway, the question here is not what belongs in another article. It’s whether this meets notability guidelines.  —Michael Z. 02:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, the very act of merging this article into the LPR is a futile exercise. You may as well open up an AfD discussion, because that's effectively what you will be achieving by merging this article into the LPR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Because there’s almost nothing here that’s based on reliable sources. Okay.  —Michael Z. 03:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  It is/was the ruling political party of a notable polity. eduardog3000 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources tell us the Kremlin determined who would serve as its proxy leadership in Luhansk, so ruling party is misleading, at best. Not sure if polity is accurate either. But if you can find a single RS that says that, please add it to the article. —Michael Z. 19:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Don't merge per Jargo Nautilus's reasoning.
• Oppose merge per above discussion This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

eduardog3000 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Don't merge per Jargo Nautilus. Glide08 (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Don’t merge, since when do we merge political party’s into places. Alexander vee (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge on the merged article, would their be a section of this parties political positions, leadership, and electoral results? I've never heard of the governing political party of a 'state' (disputed or not) not have an article but smaller parties can; should the Donetsk Republic (movement) of Donetsk also be merged then?Yeoutie (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  The other group has a real history predating the Russian invasion.

  This one is a front created by Russians in Ukraine. It has no genuine activities, the elections were a sham, therefore reliable sources didn’t record these things. The leadership is already mentioned in the destination article. —Michael Z. 05:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interesting for this article?

The party recently crowned the regional 'most patriotic cat'. Probably a propaganda trick to make us "believe" "cats are all pro-Russian" while there are plenty of cats who like Ukrainian soldiers. (I assume there are no pro-Russian nor pro-Ukrainian cats.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Stepan (cat) has accepted the appointment as ambassador for protecting Ukrainian culture.

Incidentally, at least some Ukrainian dogs are pro-cat.[1] Perhaps an indication of the level of development of civic national identity, as opposed to an ethnic one.  —Michael Z. 04:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

And of course, there’s Patron (dog), who has been decorated for his service..  —Michael Z. 04:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Banned in Ukraine?

This article is in the wikipedia category of political parties banned in Ukraine. However, I can't find any sources stating as much.

Can anyone verify whether it is officially banned or not? Perhaps by consulting Russian or Ukrainian sources or the text of the March and June 2022 law that banned pro-Russian parties in Ukraine? -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)