Deletion of LGBT rights in Lugansk

Comment: WP:OR or poor content isn't a valid deletion criterion (except for -REASON|original theories and conclusions), since it can be fixed through general editing (see  § c1). (This isn't a keep vote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: A general screening of the sources (including the BBC News article listing all the LGBT legal status) reveals that none of Lugansk or Donetsk are even mentioned in-text.  is smelling strong here. '''野狼院ひさし
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: selective) LGBT_rights_in_Lugansk#Lugansk_People.27s_Republic|LGBT rights in Lugansk People's Republic with Lugansk People's Republic and same for the other article, but for a different reason as per my above statement: Fails : little mention or coverage in |reliable sources. However, a merge would be appropriate. I don't see any  in the sections
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: as absolute and utter . Even if we were to overlook the fact that neither the Lugansk People's Republic or Donetsk People's Republic are even recognised states/countries, where is the rest of the content coming from? Given that a large number of editors are unable to even work out what the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Novorossiya_%28confederation%29#De_facto_flag_is_not_the_one_that.27s_in_the_infobox flag of the Novorossiya confederation is using any RS (including BIASED sources), where are the RS for these articles? Completely and patently |propagandist nonsense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:BOLLOCKS)