Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Orikhiv

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 no consensus‎. There are some suggestions to merge, but there is disagreement over the respective target. In any case, a decision and action to merge does not require administrator intervention, so this AfD can be closed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Orikhiv[edit]

[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)

For almost a month, something like 90% of the references in the article have been completely broken and unidentifiable due to a ProveIt bug. Even if you do count the unverifable stuff, there is really not much here. Most of it isn't even near Orikhiv, making it not really a "battle of Orikhiv" at all - just scattered bits of fighting in the area that are mostly covered much better in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive anyway.

I'm not really sure what exactly to do with this article. Draftification is an option, as is massively changing the scope to cover the broader 2023 eastern Zaporizhzhia campaign and/or merging with Battle of Huliaipole. If none of those end up happening, then maybe we can just delete it and put any salvageable bits into relevant notable articles. HappyWith (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. HappyWith (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding articles in the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias have lots of references, including (in the Russian) several daily updates from the Institute for the Study of War such as https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-22-2023 These could replace the references to the main page of https://www.understandingwar.org/ in the existing English article. If you Google "Battle of Orikhiv" https://www.google.com/search?q=Battle+of+Orikhiv there are many references from reliable sources, including The New York Times. If ProveIt is broken, tell its maintainer what needs to be fixed. References have to be verifiable, but that doesn't mean they have to be easily verifiable. Print-only references and ones in languages other than English are perfectly valid. Whether the battle really is best named "battle of Orikhiv" or something else, that's a content matter rather than something for AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the corresponding article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia is just covering various bombings and shellings, with zero mentioning of actual military engagements. Meanwhile, the Russian Wikipedia article has like five sentences covering actual fighting, none of which is near Orikhiv and is much better covered in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Those articles would probably fail AfD too. HappyWith (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A merge to Southern Ukraine campaign is a valid WP:ATD. There is generally a higher barrier-to-entry with these Rus-Ukr battles for standalone articles due to their recency (WP:NOTNEWS applies), so coverage needs to be beyond just merely daily updates and needs to contain some sort of significance through (preferably academic) analysis. I haven't really looked into this article yet, but am just laying my general thoughts out. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is in a bad state, however I'd say the fighting here was notable on its own. Orikhiv was the center of the failed russian winter "offensive" in Zaporizhzhia. I imagine fighting must've also taken place during the initial moments of the war. If we have articles for fighting in Vuhledar and Huliaipole, Orikhiv should also have one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just made an effort to make the citation standard less horrible. Quite a lot is sourced to a single ISW daily briefly, which my revision makes entirely evident. Concerning the previous comment "If we have articles for fighting in Vuhledar and Huliaipole, Orikhiv should also have one." I regard this mode of logic dangerous. According to Buridan's ass, you sometimes have to draw lines between things that are arbitrarily close together (otherwise you can box yourself into unlimited scope creep). Better that each case is tested against the merits separately, unless case A ≫ case B (much greater than) clearly demonstrates inconsistent application of the standards. My own bias favours splitting, not on the basis of the size of the split item, but on whether the boundary is prominent and well delineated. If no two people put the cut anywhere near the same place, all you have is a problem. However, with a clean enough cut, even a small excision can usefully stand apart. — MaxEnt 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't think there is an argument that this subject isn't important is whether or not the sourcing and content is adequate. This really rests on the dialogue between Eastman and HappyWith. Whether or not other Wikipedia's have decent sourcing should not affect what is in the English Wikipedia's version of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially merge this to Zaporizhzhia front per talk page discussions. It should not just be deleted though in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would theoretically support this too, but there is no article with that name. HappyWith (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to mention that since the removal of all unsourced info, the article now has literally nothing in it involving any "battle" beyond sporadic terror shellings by Russia.

The fact that it has not been improved in the many months since creation - and the weeks since this deletion nomination - makes me really doubt that there is any good sourcing out there with which this article could be improved. This was confirmed when I googled "battle of orikhiv" and found basically no significant coverage in any reliable English-language sources. Isn’t this a pretty clear delete per general notability guidelines? HappyWith (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2023 (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.