- 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 keep. given the recent AfD, a different consensus is not going to emerge regardless of whether this should be an article. Suggest revisiting the issue it when the war is not a current event. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an interesting list but per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST it's hard to see how does it belong on Wikipedia (per WP:NOT, with nods to WP:ITSINTERESTING). Also keeping in mind notability is not temporary, when the war ends, what will be the fate of this article? It doesn't even describe the history of the cities, just states who controls them now. This is really a weird Wikinews-type of news that stumbled onto Wikipedia. Lastly, was this created as a source-list for Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map? Maybe it could be de-mainspaced as a source subpage for that template? Ps. Lastly, this list, despite the name, is not just for cities, but also includes villages like this... so not just its purpose, but its scope is a mess too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: What has changed since the well-attended AfD this article just came off of with clear consensus to keep? ― Tartan357 Talk 22:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- While there were many keeps, the closer did not present an argument, and many keep votes fall into WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ITSINTERESTING with a rider on that WP:IAR should prevail. I don't think that such an outlier discussion should be kept with a non-admin closure with no comment, after all, WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. A month and a half have passed, the article still is a weird form of NOTNEWS. I think we should discuss it again. And I ote that in your own argument in that past AfD you said this article is a dataset required for the Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. I don't deny it's useful in this, but it should not be article, but a template subpage or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you're raising was already hashed out in the last discussion. Don't renominate just because you don't like the outcome. IAR is policy, you can't just declare any IAR close an "outlier". An AfD is not a vote, but this was 29–6 keep and policy-based arguments were given. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even notice the last outcome before my nom (but yes, I don't like it now that you made me aware of it :>). IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting." Can I abuse this approach and vote for deletion every article I don't like over and over? Reusing your words I would say that the argument you are providing about "merits revisiting" is of low quality and thus not worth the time. I say this to point out: everyone can call something of "low quality" without a compelling argument to start a motion over and over simply to try to get the wanted outcome. If this discussion doesn't end with delete, would you open one in May (or June or July and so on) then? The argument about a motion - especially when one was already presented - should in my view be compelling and have consensus, otherwise it ends in a silly motion/edit/proposal war. --Pier4r (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep The result of the last AfD, which ended only a month ago, was overwhelming (29 keep, 6 delete) and unchallenged, and addressed all the same concerns. From WP:CCC:
Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.
― Tartan357 Talk 09:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This might be a more valid permanent encyclopedic resource if it listed the dates of occupation and liberation of each settlement rather than merely its latest known status. The city/village scope issue is solved by editing or renaming with “settlements,” so not a reason to delete. —Michael Z. 18:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I never thought about this before. Firestar464 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unless we have another source to show what belongs to who (the map doesn't show all of them), then this should be kept.Dawsongfg (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I second the view above. This page is highly useful for template editing and as a source of general information reference point on its own. Even if we are to delete per the AFD proposer, one must create that separate template page first or else the map template will collapse on its own. WeifengYang (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In historical terms a geographical overview helps. The article can be improved (and in some parts is already done) with links to the articles of the battles or timelines. In this way there will be a mapping between "where and when something happened plus an idea about the sorroundings". If one adds also "this territory was under control of X from this date to this date and then the control was reverted" it could be also helpful (although somewhat cluttered). Without mentioning that there is a template linked to the list. Last but not least, the motion was already discussed and users vote to keep the list and this new motion with the argument "IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting." disqualify itself because it is not a compelling argument. --Pier4r (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep per reasons listed by User:Tartan357, User:WeifengYang, User:Dawsongfg, and User:Pier4r above. ...Also, I totally agree with User:Mzajac's comment that "This might be a more valid permanent encyclopedic resource if it listed the dates of occupation and liberation of each settlement rather than merely its latest known status." Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (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.