Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory

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 some concerns were raised about this being a POVFORK of other topics, there is general consensus that this topic is notable and cannot be fully covered in other places. That is that this is more a split than a POVFORK. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory (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)

This article seems to be an unnecessary duplicate of the "Conspiracy theories" section in Trump–Ukraine scandal. The content should be merged, if anything. bender235 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested by Bender235.--MONGO (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am of the view that the article is, should be, and will continue to become, more comprehensive than the "Conspiracy theories" section, which is part of an already quite large article that should not cover the topic in all its breadth and detail. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I split this out because I think it's too big to sit in list of conspiracy theories and WP:UNDUE in any depth in Trump–Ukraine_scandal. I think it's a separate topic that deserves deeper coverage than would be appropriate at either of the two places it's currently covered. Guy (help!) 23:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the simple reason that not everything that is false is a conspiracy theory. Absolutely no notability for this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple cited reliable sources characterize the matters as "conspiracy theories." soibangla (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. To say it's not notable enough when it's one of the root cause/motivations of the actions that resulted in impeachment inquiries of Donald Trump is ludicrous. It rises a bit above the other run of the mill batshit nonsense embraced by this US president. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make articles for a person's motivations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we make them because a subject is notable. Which this clearly is. It is a separate and distinct topic from Trump's Ukraine shakedown - and the actions of Giuliani, Barr et. al. in support of this conspiracy theory may end up in separate indictments. Guy (help!) 08:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Headbomb. Was "merged", but per Soibangla's comment was split-out by JzG. This item is related to the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and Trump–Ukraine scandal it is more significant beyond being just being buried in the "List". See RS such as [1][2][3]. X1\ (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POVFORK of Trump-Ukraine scandal. Jdcomix (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is rather the opposite: the conspiracy theory is a real-world POVFORK by the right. Guy (help!) 10:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! This is a legitimate fork allowing better coverage of this Trump/Russia/GOP/Fringe sources group of conspiracy theories designed to distract from Russia's real election interference, which was welcomed and aided by many members of the Trump campaign. There was massive collusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. RS describe this as a major and growing conspiracy theory. It deserves its own article, with a section in the main article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easily meets GNG. Presents the same POV as the main article, so it can't be POVFORK. The subject is too complex to adequately cover in the main article, whose size is already approaching conventional limits.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A highly notable/widely published and well-defined subject. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Information about the complex conspiracy theories regarding the server is essential for understanding this story and its relation to the impeachment inquiry. It is not easy to find such information, but the Wikipedia entry presents this information clearly and appears well sourced and unbiased. Claraevallensis (talk) 03:55 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per the concerns given by User:Jdcomix KingofGangsters (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to POVFORK as noted by User:Jdcomix and KingofGangsters. Temeku (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcomix, KingofGangsters and Temeku: Please would you explain how this article contains a POV that is inconsistent with the summaries of the matter in other articles? This article was created simply because the detailed content would be UNDUE in other articles. soibangla (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article's information is summarized fine in the main Trump-Ukraine scandal article. The POV of the sources isn't necessarily inconsistent with the POV of the article per se, but the emphasis given to the specific topics mentioned in the article are UNDUE. I wouldn't mind K.E. coffman's proposal to expand the scope if the section gets too long, though. This article still seems redundant, though. Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I think it is essential to keep this page up to properly inform people about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.146.1 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but expand scope to all conspiracy theories currently listed at Trump–Ukraine scandal#Conspiracy theories. "Ukraine corruption" is discussed in the article on Corruption in Ukraine, which is a real thing. The present title is potentially confusing. Other than that, it's a valid WP:SPLIT from an article that's already overly long. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, topic is subject of scholarly analysis in reliable secondary sources. Topic is complex and predates the topics which it is an alleged split from. Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. soibangla put it best above. It's had lots of reliable source coverage and is clearly impactful. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per soibangla.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into CrowdStrike. There is absolutely no basis for an article like this being called "Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory". This article is primarily about Donald Trump and American politics, not corruption in Ukraine. Searching for Ukraine and corruption doesn't and shouldn't lead to this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory? This whole thing goes well beyond just CrowdStrike. And you previously voted "Delete." soibangla (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2019 (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.