Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine (2 nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. The nominator's good faith is not relevant if others argue for deletion; nor is the fact that there was a previous AfD which resulted in 'keep' relevant, per Wikipedia:No binding decisions, if people have changed their minds. Apart from the clear majority among those addressing this AfD rather than the last one, which easily meets the definition of 'rough consensus', no attempt has been made to challenge the concerns over original research. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine[edit]
- This is the second nomination for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine for the first nomination. See Talk:East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine for discussions.
- Delete. The article's title is (1) inflammatory, (2) biased, and (3) nonacademic. There are countries with higher degree of regional dissimilarity, Canada, UK, Spain, India, Russia, to name a few, but for none of the countries, the regional differences have been listed in a separate article like Dissimilarities in Canada or Dissimilarities in Russia. Instead, the regional differences are commonly covered in History of Canada, History of Quebec, Culture of Canada, Culture of Quebec, etc. This way, the similarities and dissimilarities are presented together, under neutral and non-inflammatory title. Thus, instead of creation of East-West similarity in Ukraine and East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine, the regional similarities and differences should rather be covered in History of Ukraine, Culture of Ukraine, or if it's necessary, in Regional policies in Ukraine. --KPbIC 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This article survived 1 AFD already, no reason to overturn a community decision. Besides, there is nothing inflammatory or biaised in the title. As for History of Ukraine, it is already huge and information must now be spinned off to child articles. This is a wonderful occasion of doing so. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy keep. Survived first AfD unanimously and for a reason. Obviously a POV attempt of deletion driven by the nominator's seeing Wikipedia as a tool to advance his political agenda. Totally valid topic, totally neutrally written. Could be developed and further improved but does not fit the AfD profile in any way. Article was started in order to avoid a really divisive way the topic was handled earlier as someone wrote the currently AFDed extremist anti-Ukrainian article (see also this). Deletion and merging was discussed at talk here and here, respectively, and as discussions ended to the nominator's dissatisfaction, the new trick to achieve the same goal is being attempted. --Irpen 19:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, a comment by an editor (who created this article in the first place) driven by his view of Wikipedia as a tool to advance his political agenda. The editor fail to recognize that this title is inflammatory, biased, and nonacademic. The editor rejects each and every proposal to change the title to neutral. --KPbIC 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I let the others judge. Besides, I said I was open to the rename suggestion but not to some kind of "merge" under the pretence that the topic is somehow not worthy an article on its own. It is worthwile to point out that both attacks on the article's existence came from two radical but curiously the exactly opposite ends of the political spectrum. The nominator of the previous AfD wrote an extremely inflammatory (by content, not the title) "East Ukraine" entry, now AfDed, that almost called for the partitioning of Ukraine. The second nominator, sees the mere acknowledgement of Ukrainian non-uniformity as "divisive", "inflammatory" and "biased" and launches an attack on it from the opposite end. That radicals attack the article from both ends seems a good indication that the article strikes the right balance --Irpen 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Irpen's claim that "radicals attack the article" is nothing but a personal attack against everybody who somehow turns out to have an opinion different from his. Further response is moved to User talk:Irpen. --KPbIC 00:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's blatantly false. I recognize and accept the POV that are different from mine and resolved hundreds of articles with my good-faith opponents. There is no personal attack in calling radical views as such. I can point to a good bunch of instances where you pushed views radically different from the mainstream in the country whose opinion you claim to represent as well as from the positions widely accepted internationally. That's exactly why such views did not find any backing. Finally, when you have nothing to say on the topic, accusing your opponent unsubstinantially in a personal attack just shows that you really do not have anything more to say. You just "disagree". --Irpen 00:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Irpen's claim that "radicals attack the article" is nothing but a personal attack against everybody who somehow turns out to have an opinion different from his. Further response is moved to User talk:Irpen. --KPbIC 00:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I let the others judge. Besides, I said I was open to the rename suggestion but not to some kind of "merge" under the pretence that the topic is somehow not worthy an article on its own. It is worthwile to point out that both attacks on the article's existence came from two radical but curiously the exactly opposite ends of the political spectrum. The nominator of the previous AfD wrote an extremely inflammatory (by content, not the title) "East Ukraine" entry, now AfDed, that almost called for the partitioning of Ukraine. The second nominator, sees the mere acknowledgement of Ukrainian non-uniformity as "divisive", "inflammatory" and "biased" and launches an attack on it from the opposite end. That radicals attack the article from both ends seems a good indication that the article strikes the right balance --Irpen 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, a comment by an editor (who created this article in the first place) driven by his view of Wikipedia as a tool to advance his political agenda. The editor fail to recognize that this title is inflammatory, biased, and nonacademic. The editor rejects each and every proposal to change the title to neutral. --KPbIC 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless the contribuitor quickly writes some sense in the article, I am going to vote for its deletion. So far it is some chaotic rant that different neighbors influenced Ukraine. But not a word how it actually created the "disiimilarity" and of what kind, and why not "north-south" nor NNW-SSE. Also the title is of dubious usage:no google hits besides wikipediatry. `'mikka (t) 19:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This was discussed at Talk:East-West_dissimilarity_in_Ukraine#Delete. The article is open for anyone to develop it. I might if I get to it as well. As for the title/google hits issue, the title is descriptive. We have articles with descriptive titles, se eg. Evacuation of East Prussia or Polish contribution to WWII. Also, I am open to renaming suggestions but merging is a poor solution with a clear political purpose. The topic is valid in its own. --Irpen 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed my major point: the article says nothing, zilch, nada, nic informative about the division. The provided external link is useless in this respect as well. If you want to store theuseful information collected here, you may place it, e.g. into Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2006, prefacing it with something like "The clear division of Ukraine seen in the map of the distribution of votes caused numerous comments about historical, political and social division of Ukraine ... Bla Bla Bla ... " The voted article in its current state is void. `'mikka (t) 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This was discussed at Talk:East-West_dissimilarity_in_Ukraine#Delete. The article is open for anyone to develop it. I might if I get to it as well. As for the title/google hits issue, the title is descriptive. We have articles with descriptive titles, se eg. Evacuation of East Prussia or Polish contribution to WWII. Also, I am open to renaming suggestions but merging is a poor solution with a clear political purpose. The topic is valid in its own. --Irpen 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it fails WP:OR, WP:V and discusses the possible reasons for a dissimilarity between the East and West in Ukraine rather than establishing that a dissimilarity exists. If it is expanded and sourced I would change my opinion. Yomanganitalk 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The name contains practically all the information currently present in the article. The talk is several times longer than the text suggesting it is good as a magnet for wars. And there's much more than the binary East-West "dissimilarity" - there were many more states, peoples and political structures. Pavel Vozenilek 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article must be written about geographical divisions within Ukraine, perhaps within the main Ukraine or History of Ukraine articles. But it must have a different title than this one. But keep the content for now. Change vote from Delete' to Keep Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- Delete. Per Pavel Vozenilek. Dissimilarity in Ukraine much more. --Yakudza 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Irpen. A content fork is okay, but its does need to be expanded and wikified.Arbusto 17:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Yomangani and Pavel Vozenilek. If deleted and recreated later, consider using a different article title such as the one suggested on the article's talk page.--Riurik (discuss) 05:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to something better. It's a notable topic, but I suppose the title needs to be fixed. —Khoikhoi 05:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is so surely notable, if it defines the political life in a country of 60 millions. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:37, 15 September 2006 (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.