Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. peace plan for Ukraine

U.S. peace plan for Ukraine

[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)

Very short and could easily be covered in Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). No indication of significance beyond existing as a possible end to the war, which is already covered in the aforementioned article in much greater detail. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Russia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Merge into the section, per nom. Should not not be another avenue for advert of dubious original draft version authors. D'Lisye (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This peace plan for Ukraine, even if it is a draft, is already the subject of independent media coverage and part of an active international diplomatic debate, so deletion would erase a timely topic before a larger number of news reports can be incorporated in the upcoming week to expand the article. Furthermore, it is already relevant because U.S. President Trump has been publicly associated with the plan, and it has provoked reactions from governments and analysts and directly shapes ongoing negotiations and public discussion, all of which justify its encyclopedic value, so, in my humble opinion, the article should be retained now to be expanded with forthcoming information rather than premature deletion. RitaLem (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now Trump promised to end the war within 24 hours of taking office. It didn't happen. Whether this round of secret drafts for restoring the right of conquest leads to anything concrete is currently unknown. The sources point to a lot of media noise and attention-seeking by Trump, but it's not yet known how significant this is. A WP:SPLIT of the section can be possibly proposed in a few weeks, focussing on the more notable events beyond press speculation. Boud (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's press speculation and we should treat unverified claims carefully. But but beyond that the Geneva talks held today show the proposal is being discussed at a high level, which is itself a significant indicator of its relevance. RitaLem (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and too WP:SOON. A section of the Peace negotiations article is entirely suited to a proposed draft plan that may go nowhere. Also per WP:EVENTCRITERIA guidelines, as it does not yet have enduring historical significance and evidence yet of "impact, depth, duration, geographical scope". The guidelines also add "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article ... Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance." Rwendland (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) per WP:ATD. A draft is unlikely to remain stable and its inherent instability makes its longterm notability questionable.4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RitaLem, who created this article, is not WP:XC and shouldn't engage in this topic area per WP:RUSUKR. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I didn't know about the WP:XC / WP:RUSUKR restriction. Consequently, my vote should not be taken into account in the discussion. Thank you very much for letting me know. RitaLem (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RitaLem: You may wish to use {{s}} to strike through your original comment to make the task of the closer easier. Boud (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Please note that support or oppose is meaningless when it comes to AFD. Please use Disambiguate, Redirect, Merge, or Draftify instead so that the closer has a better idea of what you think. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or Keep or Delete.
@D'Lisye and Rwendland: You can use {{s}} to strike through your Support or Oppose keyword and add next to it one of Keep, Delete, Disambiguate, Redirect, Merge, or Draftify, to make the task of the person who summarises and closes this discussion easier. Boud (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud, thank you for pinging. @Rwendland D'Lisye (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that the Gaza peace plan has its own article, albeit much more detailed in the background and outline sections (the entire plan is even quoted verbatim in the latter). Perhaps we should study the justifications at the time for keeping or merging that article. I’m concerned that if this page were to be merged, the plan and reactions to it (among Europe, the Global South, etc.) would not be given enough detail. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Draftify (but then it'll only be more work to un-draftify!) - the plan has generated extensive international interest and has already been key to diplomatic conferences in Geneva and Saudi Arabia- it would seem to me best to capture more detail about evolution of the plan at these here for summarising in the article Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). - Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been consistently against any form of plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and potentially merge in the future meets GNG (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to section per nom. We're WP:NOTNEWS, and it's WP:TOOSOON to know if this will be snow from yesterday. Widefox; talk 00:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure if we need any additional evidence to establish credibility of this event. It will keep gaining more coverage. Segaton (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]