Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion

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 the participating editors here might not have addressed the nominator's concern there is a clear consensus to Keep this article and, probably what might be more important, no support at all for deletion of this article. It may not have sources from after 2023 but the participating editors here have concluded that the sources are good enough. If it were more of a borderline situation, I'd relist this discussion again but opinion seems nearly unanimous except for the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion[edit]

[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)

WP:NOTNEWS - no reliable sources covering the article subject after 2023. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more work about the unit's actions in 2024. It's lazy to call for a deletion of a page because you don't find sources from a certain year. On that note, the vast majority of the sources from 2023 in this article are considered reliable. Salfanto (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important unit of the war in Ukraine. The article is sourced well enough, and the sudject has been covered rather extensively. And if @Manyareasexpert didnt delete several news articles covering the battalion, there would be no reason for nomination. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, only unreliable sources were deleted. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable and important Marcelus (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many RS to establish notability. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 11. This was NAC-closed as "SNOW" early, despite not meeting the general criteria for SNOW. I encourage the AfD nominator (also the DRV appellant) to reply to some of the 'keep' opinions above, addressing their concerns from a P&G standpoint and discussing SUSTAINED as it may apply here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable unit, enough RS. Florificapis (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings all, thanks for all the votes. WP:GNG is a complex guide, and all of the criteria of it should be met for the article to meet GNG, including WP:SUSTAINED. It's not enough for the article to have "good" or "many" RS, the SUSTAINED criteria should be met for the article to exist. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and WP:NUNIT, obviously notable, and per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per GNG and WP:NUNIT
It doesn't fit WP:SUSTAINED of GNG. NUNIT covers military units, and if you read article content, all of it is reported "by Russian sources", so it looks more like a media phenomena, not a real military formation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (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.