Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Ruthenia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Ruthenia

Delete, do not redirect. the anon author creates a fork of Kievan Rus. The usage of "old ruthenia" in this sense is zero. mikka (t) 20:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Although it probably should be delete it, we shouldn't do so hastily because it contains a lot of content. The anon knows Wiki markup and even categorized it. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, lots of content. And markup is excellent. And all Copy-and-Pasted from Kievan Rus', the term the authors tries to drive out from WP. --Irpen 02:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete would be the best solution IMO (see comment below). --Irpen 00:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • anon just "copy-and-pasted" the Kievan Rus' article in here. This should not stand. The article should not exist as a duplicate or anything else but a redirect or a one paragraph explanation of the term an the usage or lack of it. I am fine with redirect to Kievan Rus'. In any case the current content has to be blanked. I am not sure whether it's better to delete or return to redirect because in either case another malicious user can recreate it. I would just recreate redirect and sanction the user for 3RR when he will reach it. --Irpen 21:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am strongy against a redirect, which would imply the legitimacy of the term. Please provide a reference to a moderately reputable scholar who uses it in English language. mikka (t) 21:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • There is none. Similarly, there is no scholar who uses Prussian Holocaust and Ukrainian Holocaust for the events the POV pushers apply to what WP describes as Evacuation of East Prussia and Holodomor, respectively. There was no way to have these articles deleted via VfD. I ended up writing these articles about the terms, pointing out that it is arcane and obscure. The article about the term doesn't imply its legitimacy if it says explicitly that the term is not used in the mainstream . There is no reason not to do the same with Old Ruthenia. Again, deleting is fine with me. But if it has to stay, should be the term article rather than the article about the Kievan Rus' or a redirect. And under no circumstances should two articles be allowed to simply duplicate each other. Kievan Rus' is the article for the historic material. No question about it. --Irpen 21:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Your arguments are misdirecting. The "holocaust" articles are about these terms and their (biased) usage. "Evacuation" is a descriptive term about an event that does not have an established name. "Holodomor" The article in question attempts to establish a new name for a thing that was never called in this way in English language, mainstream or else. This is a fresh POV pushing, to be resisted. mikka (t) 23:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • To the contrary, the article denounces the attempts to establish the new term. A redirect helps establish a term more than an explanation denouncing it. Discussed in more detail at talk:Ukrainian Holocaust. Pls, respond there and pls show a little more tolerance to those who disagree. --Irpen 00:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
            • So far I did not call anybody names. What is going on here is a normal discussion, an exchange of arguments. Aren't you being a tad oversensitive? mikka (t) 00:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
              • Possibly, just a tad. Blanking of a different article ticked me off. Sorry, --Irpen 00:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: keeping fork is definitely no-no. Pavel Vozenilek 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as soon as possible. It is not OK to come up with a crappy and fictitious terminology and mess up existing articles. Sashazlv 01:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This was a shortcut around renaming the article on Kievan Rus’. The correct way to deal with this is to discuss it there, and rename that article or not. —Michael Z. 2005-07-19 04:33 Z
• Delete --Ghirlandajo 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I remember the earlier actions on this, and applaud Irpen and mikka for their foresight this time. Peter Ellis 04:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I just thought that perhaps redirect of Old Ruthenia to Ruthenia might also be not a bad idea. The Ruthenia article already includes the info on usage and etymology. Not that I would mind deletion of Old Ruthenia, but the old way (redirect to Kievan Rus') was a more odd solution, I think. --Irpen

In fact, the "old" redirect was to Ruthenia. mikka (t) 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

All right. Should we restore it then? My point, as I said, is that whether the article ends up with a delete or a redirect, nothing can prevent a malicious user to recreate a fork or fill the entry with bs. A redirect to Ruthenia seems both reasonable and defensible. I am just afraid, the deletion won't last (even if it passes). Anyway, the fork will go away for sure. --Irpen 17:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I do understand your arguments; in fact, it was me who created this redirect some time ago, for the very reasons you are putting forth now. But please contemplate seriously what I am saying now:

"Old Ruthenia" was never in use as a distinctive term for a certain entity, like Old Sacramento or Old Norse. One may speak of, say, "Old France," and there even is Old French, but I don't think anybody ever will want the redirect Old France. There is no practical reason to have this Old Ruthenia redirect: most certainly every thing was sometimes old and sometimes new, and sometimes neither. That is why I placed it for deletion, rather than reverted to my original version, to close the issue once and for all. And each time this russophob will try to recreate it, I will delete it basing on this vote, rather that engage in revert wars. There are even precedents to create an empty protected page, using {{mediawiki:noarticletext}}, if the guy will be too perisistent. mikka (t) 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Now I got the idea. If you, as an admin, are allowed to use the vote result to delete the reappeared article in the future, it is indeed for the best to do the VfD once and for all. Unless, of course, a different text gets dumped into the newly recreated entry. Then, we will need a new VfD. It's amazing, how easy it is for a frivolous editor to waste so much time of so many others. But that's common in life, not only in WP. I am glad, the empty protected page solution exists as a last resort. Regards, --Irpen 21:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.