Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost of Kyiv


 * 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. Okay. Given the amount of SPA's and high amount of !votes, I'm going to BOLDly close this as a snow keep before it turns into a clusterfuck of a thing (as it's generally seen with social media phenomenons).

Generally speaking, consensus has been formed that the subject meets the general notability guideline—despite the very likely possibility that this may be fake—with the reliable sources cited in the article, and that the nomination was made too early without giving the article a chance to develop. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable. Urban legend presented in article as actual person. Lightspecs (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Too soon- Just because something may be an urban legend (I don't see any evidence that he is one, anyways) doesn't warrant deletion. Urban legends or popular tales can also meet WP:Notability.This deletion proposal has been done far too early. Dunutubble (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not totally convinced that the Ghost is real, given that the existence of the person is described as unconfirmed. I'd like to wait and see if anything more comes out on the ghost, but absent continued coverage of the individual beyond the immediate future I'd lean towards deletion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kyiv Offensive (2022). WP:TOOSOON to see if there's will be enough lasting coverage beyond the routine news cycle to warrant a standalone article, but there seems to be enough coverage to warrant a mention in the article about the battle. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't know if it's true, we don't know what's going on. There is a lot of misinformation going on a lot of fake news, a lot of propaganda stories flying around (pun intended) on both sides and Wikipedia can't be an avenue for that. We must stick to facts that can be verifiable, especially when dealing with current events. Coltsfan (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Real or legend, the coverage satisfies GNG. See also Molly Pitcher, another notable war legend. Smartyllama (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliably sourced, I agree that this was proposed too early. Ifnord (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep it definitely has reliable sources. Even if it is an urban legend, it has enough coverage for an article. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is absolute implausible. Here are some thoughts from a military expert, Tom Cooper on his Facebook page. AlmeidaBarros (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Facebook is not a reliable source and I'm very curious why an account that has been inactive for close to a year would suddenly be used to comment on this AfD and the article talk page with the same point. Smartyllama (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Facebook is not a reliable source. You could try citing a Peer reviewed academic source instead, and even then it wouldn't do anything to counter WP:GNG. Even if the story turns out to be fake we still have articles like Crucified Boy which are notable in their own right. Dunutubble (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kyiv Offensive (2022), as per . Iamthedutchdude (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This account has only six edits, all today, all but one on Ukraine conflict-related AfDs and the remaining one on the associated article page. Smartyllama (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now) per Smarty. Proposed too early. SWinxy (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that this AfD has gotten a lot of traction, and a couple !votes are from new accounts or those with few edits. SWinxy (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep As Smarty stated above, the article certainly meets the GNG, and it seems that there are further sources that have yet to be used in the article. Whether the subject is real or not, or an urban legend, or even propaganda, is irrelevant to the fact that it is receiving sufficient coverage. Could be re-evaluated for lasting impact in the future, but it is too soon to judge that. Toadspike (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if the ghost of kyiv turns out to not actually exist, it is a big urban legend that is being parroted by multiple news organizations. It can be updated to show it is an urban legend if we need to. UkraineNumbaOne (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment this account only has one edit, to this page. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 15:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - sourcing is borderline, Facebook and two sports newspapers although National News seems reliable, and demonstrates international attention. It doesn't matter at all if the pilot exists: we also write about notable hoaxes and urban legends. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON The existence of this pilot and their achievements lacks sourcing. If this person is identified and their achievements confirmed, an article with their proper name may be in order, but for now, I'd be for deletion or redirect. U-dble (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep While more emphasis should be placed on the fact this is unconfirmed it is notable and their are other pages on legends and myths.PaienPaien (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 15:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Qwaiiplayer: mostly, WP:TOOSOON. Furthermore, it smells of typical wartime propaganda. --MaeseLeon (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Will we have to delete our article on the Crucified Boy then? That was a piece of wartime propaganda during the very same war. Dunutubble (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as of starter, have the 6 downings really happened? Can they be verified? P1221 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is way too soon to delete this page. Even if it is unconfirmed, it is notable enough to feature on multiple news sites. It can be updated if it turns out to be an urban legend TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is about the persistent belief in a pilot, not the pilot. If it's confirmed to be true or false that's relevant and should be noted in the article. Frobird (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not because it isn't real, as urban legends can be notable. But because it isn't notable. Most coverage is on one event, and most articles seem to be talking about social media users celebrating the alleged pilot. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 16:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's highly likely more information about this is going to emerge in the very near future. I agree that its sourcing is something that needs improving, but considering that the invasion of Ukraine happened this, I would hold off on deletion, as things are developing quickly. If nothing else comes out about this, then I'd support merging it into Kyiv Offensive (2022), as it will likely roll nicely into the description of how events unfolded and who took what actions. However, I'd argue that it's too soon to make that call. The offensive started . We should give it at least a little more time to see what happens; I would be very surprised if no major news outlets picked up on this story.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 16:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Probably created WP:TOOSOON but similarly deleting "too soon" per WP:RAPID isn't the best remedy. Current is sufficient while content evolves and preserves work that may turn out to be useful. Can always renominate for deletion if/when decision is clearer. --N8 16:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. "There is zero evidence the 'Ghost of Kyiv' exists with Ukrainian authorities not confirming their existence." "There’s only one catch: there probably is no “Ghost of Kyiv” and this internet legend is probably not true. The legend of the “Ghost of Kyiv” is almost certainly an example of bizarre distortions and manipulations of fact or near-fact that are amplified during the chaos of war, especially a new war during the opening hours." "In this case, absolutely nothing is known about this ‘Ghost of Kyiv’. Overall, sorry to spoil the celebrations: insisting on evidence and facts is often making me a ‘party crusher’.[&hellip;] I’m simply explaining why all the nonsense circulated about the ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ around the social media is just nonsense." It would seem that all of the "proposed too early" people are ignoring that the burden rests upon them to show that this is a verifiably real thing with good sources to back it up. "Created too early", based upon reports with all of the usual journalistic get-out wording ("if", "appears", "rumoured", "would be", and so on), is much closer to the mark.  We aren't in the business of regurgitating Internet gossip and hearsay.  We're here to produce a factual encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument here is notability, not how true the event is. Articles about fake news exist on Wikipedia. And as for Tim Cooper, I respect his military expertise but we need more than one expert to confirm so. The Aviationist is a blog and self-published source, not an authority on the subject. And for the first source given, see WP:NEWSWEEK for a general indication on that site's reliability. The vast majority of "proposed too early" people - including me - are arguing not that it's nessecarily true, but instead that it's notable. Legends about Flying aces do form articles here, as we can see at Category:Flying aces for a general overview. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The burden still rests upon you to show that there actually, verifiably, exists such a flying ace; and here you are arguing that the burden is on the likes of these people to confirm that an Internet rumour is false. The burden is on Wikipedia editors like you to show, with good sources, that your claimed thing exists, in the face of people like this who make the deletion argument for us, saying that it is unverifiable, that there's nothing to say that it exists, and "nothing is known about it".  Verifiability and no original research are basic content policy, and it is a sad state of affairs when people outwith Wikipedia do a better job of challenging journalism filled with cop-outs, and actually applying our policy, than Wikipedia editors do. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, a Straw man fallacy. I have said that the article is sustained by its notability, and not that it's not real. This is not a discussion about whether or not something exists; in fact, the nominator's rationale was about WP:GNG. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge I've seen this pilot mentioned everywhere, people are looking to know more. keeping the link on site but having it merged into the offensive or the invasion would allow people searching for this name to look into, not just this specific supposed pilot, but also the wider event. Editoronthewiki (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If more info comes out I would change my vote to say the pilot deserves their own page, but for the moment it can just be a redirect. this pilot is becoming a moral boost, so we need to document it, but as of right now they may not need their own article Editoronthewiki (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep GoK is trend now in social media. but, it is just one day. wait more for deletion or keep. dont rush modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether the pilot or anything about them is real or not is immaterial, we have an article on Davy Jones' Locker. The article as I read it now is a well-sourced article that makes it clear the Ghost of Kyiv is basically an urban legend being used for morale. It may have some RECENTISM, but we can cite the other TOO SOON to counter that (AfD'd almost immediately, without allowing article to develop). As it is, article does not go against any policy and there is no reason to delete. Suggest close. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kyiv Offensive (2022). Then have Ghost of Kyiv redirect to the relevant section for people searching for GoK on Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (Cdjp1) 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This can either be deleted because it is likely propaganda, or it can be kept and described as a Ukrainian attempt to raise morale for its people. The point is the "Ghost of Kiev" is implausible, and is most likely an invention of the Ukrainian government (they were posting DCS video game footage as proof of the shootdowns). 128.6.37.43 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely the "Ghost of Kyiv" exists. But it's significant impact and media coverage warrants notability. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that was my point. 128.6.37.43 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Viral in social media. It is way too soon to delete this page. --JOestby (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It's too soon to make conclusions right now. It's described as "unconfirmed" by various sources so it's best to wait for more information to come out before potential deletion. --DJTechYT (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think we should watch after the war how this urban legend is being viewed by the population in the world. I think there's a decent chance that it can be actually confirmed. Alone the urban legend is enough to mention it somewhere, I suppose --DefendingFree (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but restructure to further empathize that this is unconfirmed and that this could be use as a Ukrainian morale booster. This has received articles from reliable sources and has been talked about everywhere. Such a notable thing should not be deleted, even if it is a hoax- and if it turns out to be a hoax, restructure the article to state that it is a hoax. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - As others have said, it is too soon to delete this article given its presence in news coverage around the world. Sources disagree on whether this is real or a hoax, and it seems opinions are very much in flux as a whole. I think the article definitely needs expansion, with emphasis placed on the pilot's unconfirmed presence during the offensive.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if he doesn't exist, this figure is becoming something of a folk hero to many Ukrainians and is worth at least a mention somewhere. I have also seen at least one mainstream news article mention this (https://nypost.com/2022/02/25/who-is-the-ghost-of-kyiv-story-of-ukrainian-ace-pilot-goes-viral/) Hypsiosthews (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Too soon, we should wait for more information. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge Even if they are an urban legend, their existence has gained so much traction on social media they deserve a mention somewhere, just maybe not in their own article in the case they aren't real. Jsc122 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not confirmed by any major or minor source. This could also be seen as advertising and propaganda for the ukrainians, thus violating wp:NPOV. It was assembled in less then 2 days thus making it of questionable quality. It may be worth a mention but not here, Wikipedia is not a forum of discussion for such unconfirmed myths. Toast   (talk)  20:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant that it has only existed for two days? If you think the article isn't notable or it's too soon then that's something you should argue for but there's no minimum amount of time something has to exist for before it can be acknowledged on this site if it meets the normal criteria.Frobird (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and monitor, with a definitive AFD (if still necessary) once it is determined whether the events are real or not. That will probably affect its future notability. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kyiv Offensive (2022). To be an actual "urban leganed" something has to have existed for more than a month. Something that alledgedly happened this month is an unverified claim and not something that merits an article. If it gets verrfiied, it may merit an article, if it persists for multiple months to be highly discussed in reliable sources, we can have this article. It is too soon to have it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment: To be an actual "urban leganed" something has to have existed for more than a month. is patently untrue with social media today, and does sound very arbitrary anyway. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Being an urban legend does not imply non-notability, otherwise what are we to do with our List of urban legends, never mind Santa Claus. Notability here is more closely related to verifiable coverage of the legend in the media, and a fair recognition of the Legend itself, not an attempt to prove or disprove the "truth" of the matter behind the legend.  Now if the article presents the urban legend as a "real person", that is obviously problematic, but that can and should be (and may be already) fixed with proper editing to clarify the matter.  Whether or not there is or was an actual "lone wolf" Ukrainian pilot buzzing around "weapons free" and shooting down Russian warplanes at the start of the conflict is irrelevant.  The notability is in the Legend itself, not the truth of it.  Now if proper treatment of the Legend can be provided in the parent article, then a merger can be considered as a separate action. T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 20:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep definitively a notable topic that has received a lot of coverage in media, even if it may be fake. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Toast CarlosYif (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This urban legend is definitely notable because a bunch of people are talking about it. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - People are going to want information about this that is reliable and accessible. Regardless of the veracity of the rumours, the coverage seems to confer notability to the name and "legend" itself as a phenomenon - just make sure that whatever we source is reliable. BlackholeWA (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also add in response to Toast that if an article for a notable topic is of questionable quality, the solution is to improve the page, not delete recent articles before the editing process can bring them up to an acceptable state. WP:PRESERVE. Maybe watch this space and monitor to see if the article *does* improve with better sourcing. BlackholeWA (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Clearly there is not going to be an outcome to this discussion other than Keep. In any case, this is a pretty clwar WP:GNG pass and an almost certain WP:10YT pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This legend deserves this. Even if this hero is unverified yet, still needs to be here because it's a symbol of resistance.ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool, did you know? MaeseLeon (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, reasons that come down to "I like it" aren't generally counted, "strong" or not. Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - there's enough coverage, and the article clearly describes it as an urban legend. "Verifiability, not Truth" is our standard, and I'd say that standard is met. Guettarda (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - I had come from Twitter to look this article up on Wikipedia with the intention of even starting it. There are massive sources to back this up. See, even if this is a myth, it should still be kept on Wikipedia to inform people that it is a myth. It's a relevant topic and it's existence in high demand.Danidamiobi (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Not every war rumor gets its own article but in this case, we are a couple of days into a major war with a billion people watching and this is one of the most popular early stories during a journalism bottleneck. There is excess attention on this story and we have the WP:GNG.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  22:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack sourcing, unvirfied, perhaps propaganda. Yxuibs (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell me you haven't read the article without telling me you haven't read the article. Your comment lacks sourcing, is unverified, perhaps propaganda. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if it's not real urban legends can have a place on wikipedia. You wouldn't remove a page on Sasquatch because it's mythical. As long as the page posits it as unconfirmed there is no reason to remove it. Additionally this is a piece of history in some form. I think its a lovely addition to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8100:2EE0:845D:82C1:7DCF:3F89 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2022 (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.