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 no consensus. There are many things which may be non-neutral about this article, starting with the title, but it is not clear from the discussion that these problems warrant deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whereas such an article can in principle exist, the current one, created by a user without previous contribution and full of POV language (part of which I removed) is a good example of WP:NOT. It is based on just one document - a statement of the Verkhovna Rada from 2014 (Ref.3) which just contains a (short) list of localitis not under Ukrainian control, and the rest is POV and original research. Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014. Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine), which in turn was nothing but a POV content fork of material already existing in other articles. I nominated this article for speedy deletion as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD (i.e. CSD G4), but the speedy was declined with the claim that the new article differed substantially from the previous one. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which other articles is this material already existing? Thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ymblanter (09:22, 27 December 2016) said: "It is based on just one document - a statement of the Verkhovna Rada from 2014 (Ref.3) which just contains a (short) list of localitis not under Ukrainian control, and the rest is POV and original research. Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014." My reply is that you did not go throuh the article if you state something like this. Crimea is considered Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia (While Donetsk and Luhansk regions are considered uncontrolled). Here is a reference indicated in article which you nominated for deletion without reason: UN Resolution A/RES/68/262. So it is not based on Ukrainian Government document only as you stated. Furthermore, you mentioned that "Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014". Please note that main law has several extensions which I will introduce later, however it cannot be a reason for deletion, main law and UN resolution should be enough for a start (new article). If you have subjective opinion (1.you have been the first one to urgently nominate my article for deletion and 2. for some reason 'did not see other references' to blame article in being low-quality)

Second point you mentioned is "Whereas such an article can in principle exist, the current one, created by a user without previous contribution and full of POV language (part of which I removed) is a good example of WP:NOT".

- I do not agree with this statement. Can you please show me at least one article where those tables are presented? If United Nations reports are considered " original research" as you stated, than it is your subjective opinion.

Dear Thomas.W , if you will check edit history, you will see that article was checked by several experienced users and none of them nominated it for deletion. What is more, your request for fast deletion was denied. Please take it into account when reverting edits of other wikipedians without obvious reason. Thank you. Yours, Жовтневе багаття — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Жовтневе багаття: You seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is and how Wikipedia works: it's an encyclopaedia, not a blog, other editors making minor changes to an article but not nominating it for deletion does not mean that they endorse the article and it's content, the speedy deletion being declined does not mean it was approved in any way, it only means that it wasn't sufficiently similar to the previous version to be speedied as WP:CSD G4, and article creators can not request that their creations be protected to prevent others from editing it, as you requested for this article... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space (Wikipedia:Userfication). The current page is not an article, it is a list. In its current form, it is not ready to be seen by the public. But the material may be worth keeping because it has potential to be useful at some point — it just needs more work, or more time. If the material were moved to Жовтневе багаття's user space, he/she would have the freedom to experiment with different ways of improving the list. One obvious improvement would be to put in Wikilinks to all the place names that are the subject of Wikipedia articles. Bearing in mind that the native language in most of these places is Russian (not Ukrainian), it would be sensible to have both the Russian and Ukrainian spelling of each place. (One of the objectionable POV pushes of both Ukrainian and Russian fascists is the view that everyone whose native language is Russian is Russian; many people from Eastern, Central and Southern Ukraine object to this POV.) Another possible improvement would be to give the month and year, each locality started and stopped being occupied/uncontrolled; some localities have been liberated, and some have not; these would all need referencing to sources. I think this list has the potential to be something worth keeping; it just needs a lot of work, and userfication seems a plausible route.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Why move to user space? It's nothing but a POV content fork, duplicating other articles, including all of ATO zone, and is also totally outdated, being based on data from November 2014. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Point taken about the part that was cut-and-pasted from the article on ATO zone; I have deleted that part. You asked why move to user space - see post of 13:07, 27 December 2016.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I noticed that you deleted the part of the article that was copied directly from ATO zone, but that doesn't help much, since what's left of the article is nothing but a totally outdated, and far less user friendly, version of the status map in War in Donbass (which was last updated in January 2016). So even what's left of this article is nothing but a POV content fork of other articles (with the POV part of it being the name of the article: "Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine", as opposed to the more neutral "War in Donbass"...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: you can argue that the remainder is a content fork of File:Map of the war in Donbass.svg, but I do not see what else it is a content fork of. If it is moved to user-space, then its creator can work on it. As a list it has potential. But it needs a lot of work. Doing this work would be good for the user: teaching him/her how to present information is a useful, neutral POV manner. If the user were successful,the list could then be moved back into article-space. If the user were unsuccessful, then he/she might still have learned something. Either way, it is a gain for Wikipedia; we might get a good list article, and we would help self-educate a new user.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should all lists be moved to user spaces? Thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a POV fork. It is a list; see for example, List of states and territories of the United States. Do you consider that to be a POV fork of United States?-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content fork, because it contains only content that is already covered in better context in the other article, and it is POV because the title includes the Ukrainian government's preferred formulation "temporarily occupied", which we shouldn't use here per WP:CRYSTAL because none of us knows whether this occupation will turn out to be temporary. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If occupation is not temporary, this is not an occupation? Very interesting logic. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RECENTISM. Articles like these, written by partisans, shouldn't exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. because:

1. Original content which is not presented in any other article. Ymblanter and Thomas.W claim that it is copy. Please present an article where not just occupied region is in general described, but a where list with exact names of towns and villages is presented. If you cannot do that, then please, Thomas W., stop writing all the same things for many times under each comment of Toddy1. Everyone has already understood that it is 'fork' as you said. Stop this harassment.

2. Strong references (Two United Nations resolution and Law of Gov. of Ukraine). Ymblanter, you mentioned that it has only Gov. ref., no it is not true. do not mislead other Wiki users.

86.17.222.157, please show me (as per your claim) "content that is already covered in better context in the other article".

User Chris Troutman said: "Articles like these, written by partisans, shouldn't exist.". - here: unreasonable "vote", with offense to author.

3. User Ymblanter is using previous article deletion precedent as a "reason" to remove this article as well, even despite it is a good database with significant improvements.

4. it was check by other experienced wiki users and for some reason none of them has critisised author, content as well none of then applied for its deletion. They only updated article and fixed some errors which means they in general has nothing oppose this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.28.165.149 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No good reasons for deletion were presented. For those claiming that it is a copy of content in article ATO zone, please note that both tables are added to both articles by me. I have tried to delete table called List of landmarks bordering with ATO zone and to move it to ATO zone article (check edit log of that article, table which you claim is copied in my other article (occupied territories) is added by me, I did not copy anything, both are my original content which was never on Wikipedia before), but when I was trying to delete this table from Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present), some users without explanation reverted my useful changes because in system it looked like huge deletion of information. Please stop to blame me in copypasting, first check who is an author and then it minus one more "argument" you used for deletion of this article. Жовтневе багаття — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user voted three times, two times as himself and once as IP--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please note that proposal for deletion is not calculated solely by number of votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.92.129.158 (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article deals with the (temporary) status of the territories as envisaged by the Ukrainian law. Its existence is both justified and needed.--Kober^Talk 15:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to simply be a recreation of the previously AfD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was closed just weeks ago. I see no reason to rehash this. I've requested a speedy deletion as recreated material. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, this is not exactly recreation, otherwise I would have speedy deleted it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One (actually, more) of the arguments there:

"Weak delete. If the phrase "temporarily occupied territories" carries any legal connotation within Ukraine, the article could be kept with extensive editing to remove POV bias.See Free area of the Republic of China for a possible analogous case. Absent this, however, the article should be deleted. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)"

For start, this issue is amended in a current article. Then, how much time should pass until we will be able to see the list of occupied territories of Ukraine? Constantinehuk (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a useful list, with the potential to provide links to useful pages on individual territories. Claims of POV appear unjustified, as it is an objective list of actual places which have recently changed hands. These facts are not in dispute. It would also be hard to argue that the situation isn't volatile, or that those territories' futures are in any way certain. A list demarcating the regions of volatility is a good and useful resource for an encyclopedia to have. We should keep it, and add to it. TTK (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of territories which recently changed hands. This is a list of territories which in 2014 were considered by the Verkhovna Rada as "occupied by terrorists". Things changed a lot since 2014, and even then the list was not particularly reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What things changed? Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ymblanter, your claims has nothing constructive. please do not disinform other wiki users and check article itself before saying "occupied by terrorists". This citation is not from my article or anywhere else, please stop adding your POV as something that is included to my article material. --Жовтневе багаття (talk)

Speedy Delete WP:G4 - As per nomination. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very useful list. Please do not refer to its creator background - no ad hominem needed. If you have examples of his "POV language" please provide them. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good and sustainable article. Deletion of previous article cannot be reason to delete this one. database recognized by united nations is good contribution to encyclopedia. Well done - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.97.50.159 (talk • contribs)

Note to closing admin: The numerous IP's here all geolocate to the same place (Shenzhen, Guangdong, China), so I suspect there's socking going on here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see one such attempt - right here. Would you mind showing the others? Constantinehuk (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14.28.165.149 and 113.92.129.158 also geolocate to Shenzhen, but I am many thousands of kilometres/miles away in Watford, England. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

113.92.129.158 is not pro-creator. I am in continental Europe too. I am taking the liberty to clarify some mess here then. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that 113.92.129.158 was pro-creator, but simply that someone commented here from that IP address, as there were also comments from editors identified by two other IP addresses from Shenzhen. It would be helpful if one or more of those editors could clarify whether it was simply a coincidence that they are in the same city or whether two or three of those comments were from the same person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of significant article update on Jan 01, 2017[edit]

Since some users in this AfD discussion make irritative claims to discredit article information (usually with weak or even without justified reasons), I would like to ask to you to go through it first and only afterwards make any statements. Please do not mislead other Wiki users with fake information which you claim is included in article. Thank you. --Жовтневе багаття (talk

Thank you for linking territories to their pages. This is exactly what I was hoping for. TTK (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this has appearance of being a government publication that is likewise cited to primary sources. It's unclear what encyclopedic value this list provides. As noted above, these territories are addressed in another article, so delete as unnecessary content fork. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article, similar to articles about accupied territories of Moldova, Japan or Georgia. I do not see any reasons for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.4.246 (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2017 (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.