Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Ukrainians (2nd nomination)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Ukrainians

This article is a typical attack page. What we have here is a compilation of mistakes of some historians that are perported to be an evidence of existance of such a phenomenon. One doesn't need to go far to see that this term is used as disparaging term for Ukrainians in general and Ukrainian historiography in particular. The Google hit on this term gives more than 49,300 hits in Russian while only 3,740 hits in Ukrainian where this term is presented as native. Moreover, this term is featured prominently in the anti-Ukrainian literature that explicitly denies the existance of a Ukrainian people, one of which is listed as the first reference in this article. The mere fact that mistakes or hoaxes that are present in any national historiography are synthesized into a separate article about particularly Ukrainian mistakes is grossly unfair to any national group and should not exist in Wikipedia. The best this article deserves is a paragraph in the existing article Ukrainian history. This article used to be a translation of a similar article by one and the same author in the Russian Wikipedia, now that that article has been rightfully deleted it is time to have a second look at this article in the English Wikipedia too. Hillock65 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fringe theories, misconceptions and hoaxes have legitimate place in Wikipedia, so do real-life nationalist theories. These are not grounds for deletion, and this was one of the reasons the previous AFDs failed. On a side note, the term appears to have very limited (yet nonzero) currency in Ukrainian wikipedia so your point may indeed be valid. On another side, the Russian wiki article was deleted February 15, 2008 as well as Proto-Ukrainians and Ancient Ukrainian Literature ~~(as a package)~~ [1]. The closing admin ruled "A number of editors (four listed) raised opinion that the article is original research. Others (three listed) objected based on the amount of references, but this opposition was overruled as superficial. Further editors raised another arguments for deletion. Verdict: Delete." Go figure. NVO (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't read Russian or Ukrainian, but trying a google translate of the first two sources doesn't seem to say anything about traditional of the Ukrainian people. The first one is purportedly written by Nikolay Ulyanov, recognizable as Vladimir Lenin, talking about Ukrainian nationalism, and the second one, labelled "Res Gestae Saxonicum" ([2])-- did the Anglo-Saxons mention the Ukraine? The mythologies and folklore of the world have been written up in English sources, so I'm not sure why one can't find this legend in something that can be verified without having to rely on non-English material about the українознавства. I'll be surprised if it isn't a hoax. Mandsford (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Saxons comprise more than the small group who migrated from Saxony to Britain & became part of the Anglo-Saxons. They extended into the Balkans. The book is a famous classic.--see the article on it.DGG (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article give too much undue weight to an extremely marginal pseudoscientific phenomena. I would save a paragraph or 2 for the fakelore.Galassi (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undue weight is being given to a rather marginal concept (the marginality of which is not really reflected in the text). Perhaps deserves passing mention in Origin of the Ukrainians, Ukrainian historiography, Prehistory of Ukraine or similar worthy articles waiting to be written. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gathering together selective info (WP:OR) to prove a WP:POINT using "conclusions" mainstream historians reject qualifies an article for deletion, IMHO. Interestingly, the article Tadeusz Czacki does not even mention the issue, while the article in question says "the term was introduced by Tadeusz Czacki". Looks to me like "the term proto-timewarp was introduced by Albert Einstein" :) I don't think selecting various misunderstood "facts" from physics can justify creating an article Proto-timewarp. An encyclopedia is about what the MANKIND knows, not what some individuals did not figure out yet. Nevertheless, 1-2 sentences can be added to a section "Mistakes and hoaxes " of an article Ukrainian historiography to be written, or to the article Ukrainian history (meaning about Ukraine and Ukrainians, not only by Ukrainian historians). Dc76\^talk 10:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A funny comparison, IMHO, would be 42: knowing the answer, but not knowing the question. Here we know the answer (Proto-Ukrainians), but from the article we can not figure out what is the question. :) Dc76\^talk 11:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National mythology is notable. It could go into prehistory, but its sufficiently distinctive. Shall we eliminate all the articles on Scamndanvian and Greek mythology also? The article makes it very clear this is not authentic history. That the ruWP deletes articles is no concern of ours. DGG (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a mythology. It is a compilation of random mistakes or hoaxes made by some people and blown out of proportion by the author of this article. Which source per WP:SOURCE points out this is a national mythology? They point out only to instances of mistakes or hoaxes. --Hillock65 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanidnavian and Greek mythology is discussed in reliable secondary sources, this one is not. Colchicum (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it doesn't satisfy our sourcing policies and is impossible to fix. As a mere collection of historical misconceptions, many of which have little to do with this peculiar term, it is not encyclopedic, while generalizing statements like "In Ukrainian Romantic nationalism, the ancient Ukrs or Proto-Ukrs (Ukrainian: протоукри) are a mythical people," which could in principle make it look encyclopedic, are unsourced and pure original reserach. Colchicum (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, impossible to find reliable sources — NickK (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2009 (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.