Deletion of Kharkiv People's Republic

Comment: Regardless on whether this entity is successful the fact remains that it does exist and there are publications that refer to the 'Kharov People's Republic' and therefore it does conform to Wikipedia rules re WP:N. '''Comment''' there seem to be a lot of Ukrainians on this discussion with a predisposition to removing anything that does not conform to the political adgenda that they are trying to pedal. Wikipedia is not a |soapbox
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: Meets , has numerous reliable sources. Also a case of . If the same thing happened in USA or UK, no one would dispute such an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SYSTEMICBIAS)

Comment: Currently it's not notable, it's similar to . And it certainly has near-zero 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: Is this the birth of a real republic or a joke in the context of Ucranian turmoil? Who cares. That is something that has to be debated as a matter of content. What matters is that it is covered by multiple sources, and as such it is |notable, apparently
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Just as with Donetsk People's Republic, this is  to the extreme. A few activists making random proclamations that they can't carry out doesn't warrant an article, and can be covered in the existing 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine article. I also recommend salting this title, to avoid the random creation of articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: or '''Merge''' - Holy s on both sides. The question of whether this is a legitimate republic, whether it's a legitimate ''anything'', whether it's nonsense or a publicity stunt, whether it gives them credibility or not, etc. -- none of that matters for the purposes of Wikipedia, which considers |notable that which has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The briefest of searches returned more than enough to render notability uncontroversial (well, ''should'' I suppose). The other question is whether it merits a stand-alone article vs. merging into the unrest article. To me this has received so much coverage on its own up to the present that a stand-alone article seems warranted. Unproven lasting effects don't automatically mean non-notable. If we start thinking about what the existence of a Wikipedia article ''means'' in the grand sociopolitical scheme of things, Wikipedia will quickly fall apart. ''Update: Changed from keep to weak keep or merge based on concentration of reporting. Though I do think it's too early to delete based on no lasting significance, merging for now is a reasonable compromise.'' --&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD||WP:N)

Comment: a very short lived, but notable entity that really existed and now it's historical. Meets  and so far (in aspects relevant to this discussion) it only differs from Donetsk People's Republic in its longevity and success
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . The ground floor lobby of the Regional Administration Building was briefly occupied by drunken hooligans who apparently claimed a "People's Republic" as a joke, but were subsequently arrested by police a few hours later and the building cleared
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)