Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ukraine

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 of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Ukraine

The articles is an OR. Frankly to define a geographical category by the results of one particular election is an absurd. The article seems to be offensive to many Ukrainians as it somehow imply that this is a separate country (bordering with Russia, Moldova, etc.}

  • Delete abakharev 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, while the article may not be all that well developed nor well written, the idea of west and East Ukraine was very important during the last presidential election there. The result of the election almost lead to a referendum for the area to form it;s own state [1] A Google search provides over 30,000 hists for `East Ukraine` [2]. Evil Eye 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This note is both a patent non-sense and a provokation. How many hits for North Germany or East New York? Let's create the articles for East <everything on this planet>?! BTW, is an Evil Eye nick your open troll statement? I suggest to ban this user, particularly for his nickname. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Evil Eye. -- JJay 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or move to Yanukovychchyna) A geographic region "defined" by where Yanukovych scored 40% plus in one election? Is there a reference describing the borders of the region where a referendum was "almost" held? Events of the election are covered in "Ukrainian presidential election, 2004" (which article doesn't even attest to "east Ukraine"). —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 17:34 Z
    • I never heard "Yanukovychchyna". This separatist project has been known as "PiSUAR".--AndriyK 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it still may become it's own state now Yushchenko has made Russia cut off the gas because it doesn't want to freeze to death and i'll ask the ukrainians i know if they find it offensive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by El fil (talk • contribs)
    • Unsigned trollistic note. Ban this user. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See Talk:East_Ukraine. In short: an encyclopedic topic for which article can exist but the current (05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)) content is useless. Unless at least a stub is written by the end-time of this vote, the article should be deleted. Whoever will get to the topic will have to do it from scratch either with or without this "article" in place. --Irpen 05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Replace by a redirect to East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine I just created. Maybe a different name is needed for my article. --Irpen 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Yakudza 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--AndriyK 16:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. AlexPU 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (or rather Redirect) per Irpen. An article on East Ukraine is reasonable. The content has to be changed or expanded. --Wojsyl (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The article is certainly valid and covers legitimate devision of the country into two parts which have little in common historically, linguistically, economically, and culturally. --Ghirla | talk 17:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Molobo 17:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Irpen but I would prefer a broader title like Regional differences in Ukraine -- jaredwf 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - in the 90ies I read a book and since then I know there is distinction between east and west Ukraine. This distinction was not created by the election, as implied by Michael Z above. No, this is longer lived. And of course you can create an article South Germany!!! or North Germany. Ukrained, go for it! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    The regional differences are already being discussed in a broader article, besides can you provide the border of that region? otherwise it has even less notability than Jesusland, except no laughs there–Gnomz007(?) 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hm, Tobias, you must be referring to either Left-bank/Right-bank Ukraine, or Dnieper Ukraine/Galicia, neither of which corresponds to the "East Ukraine" in this article. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 09:48 Z
  • Redirect per Irpen –Gnomz007(?) 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article cites an article in the Guardian which, if you read it, treats East Ukraine as a region with a specific identity. That seems plenty verifiable to me. Nandesuka 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term gained some notability after lame attempts to secede by some extreme politicians.  Grue  09:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete whatsoever, and *Move any useful data to other articles, on Regions. This one looks like an attempt to build a ideological base for a short lived political aventure. But may be kept if clearly states that is an article on political fiction User:Compay 13:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Make this crap go away. There is reason to discuss the regional differences [which were more ethnic-Russian vs. ethnic-Ukrainian than west vs. east] in the election, warranting discussion in Politics of Ukraine, but the article is wrong in its statement that the region was "sparsely populated" (it was emptied of its population by Stalin and large numbers of ethnic Russians purposefully transported in specifically to reduce nationalist sentiment there where it was strongest at the time)... additionally, the region is nowhere definitively outlined, so the entire thing is irrelevant crap. This is nothing paralleling Red state vs. blue state divide and cannot become noteworthy on that level for another 40 years. The premise of the article is that [fraudulent] election-related media hype is a sound basis for inventing article topics. Tomertalk 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    It was mostly sparsely populated back when it comprised Sloboda Ukraine and the Dyke Pole (later Novorossiya), although Crimea was an Islamic Khanate. But nevertheless, these didn't constitute a single identifiable territory, nor were they completely within the boundaries of modern Ukraine. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 14:44 Z
Be that as it may, the point you're making is subterfuge at best. What caused the sparse Ukrainian population was a combination of the Holodomor and Stalinist purges, not a persistent state of low population density dating back to the 16th and 17th centuries. Tomertalk 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Huh? You're inferring something from my comments which I don't understand. My only point is simply to try to characterize the territory which this article refers to. The best I can do is to say that it was land that was not traditionally populated by Ukrainians, or simply underpopulated, until it was colonized by the Russian Empire (also, that such lands were not a unified territory, and weren't restricted to modern Ukrainian boundaries—i.e. not "East Ukraine"). I did not mean to imply that it was sparsely populated at any time since then. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 15:54 Z
Delete or redirect to SEUAR (South-Eastern Ukrainian Autonomous Republic, for some reason that almost reads like sewer); or redirect to PiSUAR (Pivdeno-Shidna Ukrajins'ka Avtonomna Respublika) --Berkut 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is inherently unencyclopedic based on the rationale implicitly made for its existence. Eusebeus 04:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

this article has potential but needs 2 be expanded —Preceding unsigned comment added by El fil (talk • contribs)

Unsigned trollistic note. Ban this user. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Why ban a user just because they disagree with you? Maybe the only did register to make this comment, but either way, I think they make a good point. It appears you are the troll judging by your comments on the talk page (taking any comment against you as being a provocation). You have also explicitly said you have changed the article so it is suitable to be speedy deleted, realising the article in it's old form was not suitable for that. To me that doesn't seem honest, nor in the spirit of wikipedia. Evil Eye 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
User:El fil is a definite troll already warned by admin. As for you, I regard every user pushing an evident non-sense over a politically-sensitive issue a provocateur. That is definitely not in the spirit of wikipedia. As you can see, this is not about agreement/disagreement, not even about promoting separatism in Ukraine. It's about your editing approach. If you can't see that eastern Ukraine article is a non-sense, are you ready for being a Wikipedian? Did I answer your question? Ukrained 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I made the following comment on Ukrained's user page in regards to this articles deletion vote:

What is your problem with people who support this article? Maybe you see no relevance with it, other people do also agree with you, but it is also clear others do not.
Please stop calling anyone who supports this article a troll and please stop calling for people to be banned just because they disagree with you (and because you don't like their user names). You claim supporting the above article is provocation, but no one is being more provocaive in regards to this article than you.
I'm hear to ask you to stop trying to cause an argument in respct to the deletion notice placed on this article and show some respect for the deletion process of wikipedia. Let it take it's course with regards to this article. It my well be deleted, it might not be, but that decision is not one for either of us to make on our own, but instead for the wikipedian community to make togehter. Evil Eye 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukrained" Evil Eye 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If you wish a fight, shouldn't I cite my answer too?:

A provocation is always designed as "another POV" :). I hope this is clear for everybody despite the denials of provocateurs. BTW, may be you have a POV on renaming the planet or a mankind in English? If you would, should we treat such an opinion of yours with respect? Ukrained 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Ukrained 13:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Ban ukrained he can't even spell kiev correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by El fil (talk • contribs)

El fil,

  1. please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~);
  2. please avoid inflammatory outburtst which is a universal rule.

What's your problem with discussing the issue in a single article, like I proposed? Actually, you can't introduce the reader to the concept of Eastern Ukraine without constantly referring to what in its history and demographics makes it different from Western Ukraine. One article, where the issue is discussed seems like the most convinient solution. What do you say? --Irpen 01:07, 6 January 2006 (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.