Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Ukrainian political crisis

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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. Despite appearances, this actually isn't even particularly close, given the various "keep" votes with no defense and the assorted SPAs on the keep side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Ukrainian political crisis

2008 Ukrainian political crisis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The current entry is an example of original research and an opinion piece on current affairs in Ukraine. It violates at least the following two wikipedia policies - WP:No original research and WP:SOAP, and consequently should be deleted.--Riurik^(discuss) 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - reads like an essay, is always going to attract ethno-warrior-editors, never going to hold a NPOV.— TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to have been more than a U.S. Senate filibuster, but less than a parliamentary crisis of the Westminster system variety. The parliament was non-functional for a while, but this seems to have passed. The government itself was not in danger of falling, from what I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. Also, far too much original research for my liking. EJF (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (on reflection) Having removed the fictitious "NATO membership" and OR concerning implications of resignations from OU, what's left - regardless of who authored it - is an accurate and factual description of the notable current and emerging crises in Ukraine this year. The one objection I can see to the article in its present form is that because the events are still unfolding the article is being written as news rather than a concise summary with the benefit of hindsight. NOT#NEWS does not prevent this, but it does demand historical notability. If that means that we must wait until we can judge the impact of the present events on Ukraine's history then so be it. To Dhartung: the blockade continues, the speaker is powerless to convene parliamentary sittingsand the opposition is dictating the terms under which it will temporarily lift the blockade in order to allow debate of specific draft laws of its choosing. Sounds like a crisis to me. To YWP (below): the defections from OU are the least of the issues; the major issue is the ongoing paralysis of the parlament by the opposition. -- Timberframe (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Is was blocked on Feb. 5 the other issue is tyhe mass resignation of members from the President's party Our Ukraine. Attemps top delete this article is further examples of selective sensorship which brings Wikipedia into distrpute
• Delete The United States have had worse situations, with no mention on Wikipedia. This article reads like it was written about the "Our Ukranian" Party collapsing, which would be a different article. I would either delete or rename this article, and find more sources. YoungWebProgrammer ^msg 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (but wait till the blockade is over) cause if it continous there is a crises. The part about Our Ukraine seems to have nothing to de with the blockade or crises and can be placed at Our Ukraine (I already did that anyhowe!) and deleted from this article. Unless somebody can come up with a good source that there related! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Someone has changed the results of this survey and removed the names and changed the results. Thisi stink of corruypt practices and bias editing... There is more tpo the curret politcial crisis the the Anti NATGO protest. What about the mass resigatyion of members of the Presidets party Our Ukraine. Yes there is a cocerrted campiogn of seclective bais editig on Wikipedia. Is it offical Policy of Wikipedia top preset a partican point of view. Such policy ad removal of votes brings wikipedia into disrepure. View history files. WARNING This vote will also be removed by the looks of it... SHAME SHAME SHAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.45.14 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I accidently removed 1 vote (sorry non intended), the other results you are talking about where old talkpage comments (see talk:2008 Ukrainian political crisis) from User:Timberframe and me. They shouldn't be copied to this page anyhowe cause if User:Timberframe and me would find that necesary we would have done it ourself! If we kept them User:Timberframe and me would have voted twice... (I'm sure Putin wouldn't have a problem with that but I do...). While removing his and mine comments I acidently removed 1 I shouldn't have. Mistakes happen, I'm not a computer... Whatch out you don't become the boy who cried wolf... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Its all WP:OR. Ostap 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to suggestions (made on the article's talk page) that use of the word crisis is OR - see the following sources for use of the word by a wide spectrum of politicians and media. My point is not to oppose the deletion proposal but to challenge the apparently uniformed basis of comments which are being used to promote its deletion.

• [1] 11 February 2008 "Viktor Yanukovych considers early elections or reformation of the coalition as possible ways of solution of parliamentary crisis"
• [2] 15 February 2008 "Adam Martynyuk, is sure that the NATO question has led to the parliamentary crisis"
• [3] 18 February “The only possible solution of the parliamentary crisis must be found in the parliament,” Yushchenko stated.
• [4] 21 February 2008 "[Lytvyn] is sure that the crisis in the parliament will not end soon"
• [5] 25 February 2008 "Ivan Kyrylenko thanked his colleagues for consent to discuss political agreement and ways out of political crisis in public."
• [6] 26 February 2008 "Chairman of the VRU Arseniy Yatsenyuk considers that there is no parliamentary crisis in Ukraine." [included for balance]
• [7] 1 March 2008 "Deputy Prime Minister Ivan Vasiunyk believes that the aim of the congress is to escalate the political and parliamentary crisis in the country"
• [8] 28 February 2008 "Yanukovych announced that preliminary parliamentary election or reformatting of the coalition may be way out of the political crisis."
• [9] 26 February 2008 "Кириленко: «Регіоналам» важливіший візит до Брюселя, аніж подолання парламентської кризи" (Kyrylenko: The visit to Brussels is more important for the “regionals”, than overcoming the parliamentary crisis)
• [10] 25 February 2008 "the political agreement which is the way of overcoming the parliament crisis proposed by the speaker"
• [11] 18 february 2008 "The only possible solution of the parliamentary crisis should be found within the parliament's walls,"

-- Timberframe (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Touché. But I stand by my opinion. Ostap 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenya had a crisis; Belgium had a parliamentary crisis; Ukraine had one after the 2006 election. But there is no crisis in Ukraine in 2008, so far. These links quote interested parties who use the crisis phrase, because they are trying to frame it as a "crisis" in the media. When there was a crisis in 2006, it wasn't just the interested parties that described it as a crisis, it was journalists, editorials, experts, other governments. We don't see that right now. If you survey general news sources, the only crisis they mention that is happening in Ukraine presently is the one involving natural gas (Russia-Ukraine gas dispute). At the moment, this entry is premature, and should be deleted.--Riurik^(discuss) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP Omg... keep. Keep, or else. (just kidding)--Alisyn^talk 02:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, whatever it is, whatever the degree, any kind of significant political dispute or issue warrants an article provided we have enough information available to write about it. Everyking (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, attempts to remove the article is an blatat act of censorhip at its worst. suggestion that the crisis is a Parliamentary Crisis and as such not a Political crisis is a joke. More examples of the blantant attempts at political censorhip. Likewise the suggestion that the article should remain until the crisis is over also brings wikipedia into disrepute. The 2007 crisis is over? Should we obliterate it from the historical records. LOL The same group of editors continue to push their non NPOV by seeking to remove aynthing that is critical of the political force that they support. Today the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliemet admited it was a politcal/Parlaimentary crisis. If it is related to the parliament it is politcial but teh crisis is much more the a parliametary crisis there is the resigtation of a political party and the gas dispute with Russia and Ukraine's relationship with Europe all facing a crisis Kurtdaydo (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOT#NEWS. It's only a small event in a parliament. Only because of some disagreement and people walked out? Move to wikinews, not here. Dekisugi (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL It is much more the that.. members of the Governig coalition and President's policitcal party have resigned,Loss of partlaimetray majoorty as a result, the gas dispute has fired up again between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. This is a record of historical fact and not news. The same situtaion in the 2007 politcial crisis the opposition refused to particapate in Parlaimentary sessions. Spunge the issue from history and place a baner on Wikipedia Only pro Presidential and Government articles allowed (Even if it is historical fact) I guess the riots that lead to the Georgian Polictal cruisis was just news accordig to your accout. The same tactic by the same group of editors was applied to the Ukrainian Constitutional Court crisis. deny ad prevent hsitorical facts from beig presented or seeing the light of day. SHAME SHAME SHAME.. Remove the 2007 policitcal crisis article as well.. :) Come tomorrow the Parliament will have breached the 30 day limit as the last time the parliamentary session was held was on February 5. The it becomes a constitutional crisis.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdaydo (talk • contribs)

Oh and there is this quote from Raisa Bogatyreva, secretary of the Council for National Security and Defense. (If this is not a political crisis what is. Wiki will have egg on its face).

Ukrainian President to Dissolve Parliament

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko will probably use his constitutional right and dissolve the parliament, which is blocked by the opposition, said Raisa Bogatyreva, secretary of the Council for National Security and Defense, RIA-Novosti reported.

Raisa Bogatyreva, secretary of the Council for National Security and Defense, indicated that the President may dismiss the parliament stating

Fair enough but what the hel does the Gas Crisis got to do with Ukraine unable to hold its regular parliamentary session and Resignation from "Our Ukraine" Party, you just can't mention evry event, put them toghetter and call it one big crises. (what do Ukraine unable to hold its regular parliamentary session and Resignation from "Our Ukraine" Party have in common anyway?) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kurtdaydo is a sockpuppet of UkraineToday. It looks like UT has now thrice told us to keep the page. Ostap 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve sourcing. —Nightstallion 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The fact that the some newspapers talk about "political crisis" doesn't mean there exists one. It is very common that the media use this kind of expressions. It seems to me that the article was written before a real crisis breaks out. Since the president is thinking to dissolve the parliament it is possible we see a real crisis soon, but I think now we may say that the situation is "unbalanced" but not a crisis. I am ready to change my vote if someone provides more data supporting the opposite. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Please note this AfD guideline on discussion: The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. Again, aside from the Russia-Ukraine gas crisis, there was no other crisis in Ukraine. It is true that the parliament was blocked by opposition groups, but that does not make a crisis. Every time there is a filibuster does not make it a crisis either. Lastly, see the following news item about the resumption of parliament's work on March 6th.--Riurik^(discuss) 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Novosti a realiable source? Acording to Wikipedia it is state controled... I would not recomend using it! UNIAN [12] seems to be more indipendent, the (from Novosti) info seems to be correct.... this time.... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, as a rule, Novosti carries with it the state bias and should be avoided, but in this case the report was factually correct and suffices for our purposes.--Riurik^(discuss) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:NOT#NEWS, as has been cited. This is a classic case of recentism. Every country has political flaps, every country has the scandal de jour, parliaments get dissolved, fresh elections happen, and ten years down the road, no one notices or remembers. Do we have articles on the 1999 Ukrainian political crisis, the 2000 Ukrainian political crisis, the 2001 Ukrainian political crisis, the August 2001 Ukrainian political crisis, etc, because there certainly was something that some newspaper somewhere called one?  RGTraynor  15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as political crises have historical and encyclopedic relevance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: When they are actually crises, as opposed to the daily flapping of the media cycle.  RGTraynor  16:18, 11 March 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.