Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainophone

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 keep (aka "oppose" ;). If the argument to delete is about the non-usefullness of the language-phone articles, then please start with a more established one (e.g. Anglophone) or better yet, nominate them as a group. Turnstep 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainophone

A clear-cut dicdef about a very rare term. Just like with Lusophone, Anglophone and Francophone the information contained that isn't about language usage (wiktionary information) is duplicated in the main language articles, in this case Ukrainian language. I don't see how any of the language-phone articles are relevant to Wikipedia. They often don't even contain any encyclopedic information, just examples of how the term is used and by whom, something sorted under the section header "Usage notes" at English wiktionary, and usually just duplicate the main language articles. What little verifiable information contained that can't be found outside of these articles is not made more accessible by keeping these kinds of articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose a term very valid in modern UA politics. The issue about parts of population being Ukraino- or Russophone is very significant in much of UA politics and this is the article to elaborate on that as well. --Irpen 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's about Ukrainian politics, it should be in Ukrainian politics. If it's about demography it should be in Ukrainian people or Ukrainian demography (or something). "Ukrainophone" is a pure dictionary definition. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Irpen. --DDima ^(talk) 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment are all the other "phone"s also up for deletion? I think this one has just as much right to stay as any other. And I double dog dare you to suggest delete francophone and watch the wrath of every single Quebec WPdian unleashed on you. :-) Kevlar67 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The nomination is not ambigious; there is only one article up for deletion. However, there is absolutely no difference between Francophone and Ukrainophone except that the former is more widespread. The added cultural meaning of Francophone doesn't make it more encyclopedic; it just means that additional information should be added to the Wiktionary entry. It would be so nice if participants could show even a modicum of reason and try to discuss the matter itself instead of voting on every imaginable bureuacratic irrelevancy. I think we can decide on the merit of a single article without assuming that it creates a carte blanche for anyone who wants to zap all similar articles out of existence. / Peter ^Isotalo

• Well first off you're right, the francophone and ukrainophone articles do have the same information value, which is why I say that one should not be deleted if the other is not, simply for consistency’s sake. However the cultural value attached to them is exactly what makes them worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia or not. Why write about something that isn't "valuable"? My personal opinion is that the article on the Ukrainian language is too long (in fact it says so when you edit it). I think it should be split, and some of the information on geographical distribution moved here. The same could be done for francophone, etc. That would be much more useful than deleting this page. In other words I oppose the deletion. Kevlar67 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All terms have "cultural value", even dictionary definitions. You could vote to keep any dictionary definition by claiming it has a certain cultural value. "Ukrainophone", though, seems to be so rare that it might very well be considered a neologism.

That Ukrainian language is too big is not a valid excuse to start forks that have dubious encyclopedic value. There are countless ways to create sub-articles of main language articles (just look at any of the language FAs), but articles about the speakers as a group or a term for the sake of the term itself is not one of them. See geographic distribution of Portuguese for a precedent.

Please have a closer look at how language articles are written and keep in mind that none of "-phone" articles I'm aware of contain encyclopedic information (i.e. not just language usage) that wouldn't easily fit in the main language article or isn't already contained in them. I believe you should reconsider your vote.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:28, 19 April 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.