Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War


 * 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 delete. In terms of numerically, there are six editors arguing to keep (one of whom qualified as "weak"), and twelve to delete (two of whom qualified as "weak"). Of course, AfD is not a simple vote or head count, but the numeric result is also not entirely irrelevant or meaningless.

Editors on both sides made reasonable, policy-based arguments for their positions; there was not one side or the other making entirely indefensible or unreasonable arguments. Those arguing to keep argued that there is sufficient reference material available to sustain an article on the topic, while those arguing against tended to argue that the topic is both overly speculative and may constitute needless content forking of material already covered in a parent article. With all this considered, the consensus, while not unanimous, is that this is not a suitable topic for a separate article at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War

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

This page seems to be nothing but predictions, extrapolation, speculation, and "possible future history". This seems to run afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I do not see how the article could be re-written or edited to change that. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep notable topic with widespread discussion                   . All of this only in English-language sources, and there is more.  Super   Ψ   Dro  23:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions, All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. The claim that WP:CRYSTALBALL backs deletion is not true. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is of the type CRYSTAL warns us against, not of which it says are permissible. It is true that we have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. But that passage continues... An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. Are you suggesting that this article is about a notable artistic work (like Star Trek, or Brave New World)?  Or an essay or academic or non-fiction work like The Population Bomb or Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow?  Those are appropriate topics because they are about a specific notable artistic or academic work that happens to be about a fictional future, or a specific prediction (that itself is notable).  This article is more like "Weapons to be used in World War III", than the other examples. Compiling sources into some sort of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH prediction is not appropriate.  If there are specific notable predictions about the Russo-Ukrainian War, in art, academia etc. they can be addressed in an article about that specific work, not the current article which is more in line with "Weapons to be used in World War III".  Alternatively, if the relevant predictions are not notable enough for their own article it might be appropriate to mention them in the main article about the Russo-Ukrainian War or one of its many sub-articles. That is not a reason to keep this article though. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is not a compilation of sources to make some kind of prediction, it is an article compiling sources making predictions. There is no WP:OR here, it is all verifiable and sourced. Point 3 of WP:CRYSTALBALL states Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it., which I believe is a warning against WP:OR, not against any articles on predictions. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about a specific notable prediction. As seems to be saying below, it is an article that attempts to aggregate various non-notable predictions. Each of these predictions, on their own, are not notable enough for their own article. Perhaps not even notable enough for inclusion in Russo-Ukrainian War, but that is a question for the editors there. Just because you can find academics, news agencies, and other normally reliable sources prepared to say that nuclear weapons are likely to be a weapon used in WW3, doesn't make a Weapons to be used in World War III article appropriate. It might be a great essay, but as a Wikipedia article it is offside of both WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOT, as  has noted below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL applies and there is nuance to what it states. Articles on future events should be scheduled and almost certain to take place. War is inherently unpredictable. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. To the first part of this, the guidance would generally refer to the sciences or theories established within other academic contexts. To the last part, the article has an inherent POV issue. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable. However (per WP:ONUS), verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.  Another key issue is the quality of sources.  Most of the sources relied upon are news sources.  These news sources may be written by experts but they are neither expert sources nor of particularly good quality that would be associated with peer reviewed academic journals. Sorry but this seems much too long a bow to draw. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In the same point in which it is stated that articles should be almost certain to take place, it is said that As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic. Notability plays a big role in here, and this topic does receive a wide coverage in sources which even though are not of the highest quality, are reliable. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * My OP pretty much addresses this though not specifically. The Ultimate fate of the universe is a topic of academic discussion arising from established scientific theory. These discussions are scientific extrapolations. Sources cited in Ultimate fate of the universe are from academic journals and prima facie peer reviewed. The Ultimate fate of the universe is therefore presented as an exception for scheduled or expected future events because it is exceptional.  The Future of Earth has similar merits to the Ultimate fate of the universe with respect to theory and sourcing.  On the other hand, I have already identified the inherent unpredictability of war, the POV inherent in the title, the strength of assertions compared with scientific theory (extrapolations) and the comparative weakness wrt news sources v peer reviewed sources. Articles subject to CRYSTAL have a much higher threshold of notability. It is not just a matter that sources exist but the depth of sources and several other considerations per CRYSTAL. There is absolutely no comparison between the AfD and the Ultimate fate of the universe. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no such a thing as a higher threshold of notability for articles. An article is either notable or not. This topic, being discussed by numerous experts in think tanks and major newspapers, governmental institutions (USIP for instance) and officials and even heads of state, is notable. This topic meets the condition where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. I also see no NPOV violation in the title. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Respectfully, a "hypothetical victory" is a very strange topic for an article. This isn't a thing that exists. Even if you consider that the subject matter is the by various parties of a potential Ukrainian victory, it still doesn't merit a separate article. If possible, the content should be rescued and merged into Russo-Ukrainian War, but under no circumstances should this be a standalone article, per the above rationale laid out by both  and .  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 03:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * a thing that exists is definitively not a threshold for having an article in Wikipedia. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep There’s nothing wrong with an article about extrapolations. We do have a good article on Future of Earth.
 * Of course it could be improved, but this one is a decent start (title could be more neutral, though). This article is not a prediction of what will happen: it is a roundup of academic and other discussion on what needs to happen, what is likely to happen, how to achieve certain ends, the possible repercussions, and so on. There is a body of study on ending wars or war termination. Another whole aspect that’s written about and might belong in this article are the signs that a historical change may be taking place: the possible end of the post-Cold War period, or the “end of the end of history” or whatever. —Michael Z. 03:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a great argument. Second, even if we accept that this is a notable subject matter, you haven't explained why it merits a standalone article. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 03:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that @Mzajac wasn't attempting to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the situation, they were giving Future of Earth as an example of how a article of this type could be done in a manner that is that complies with WP:Notability and WP:NPOV.
 * While 'Otherstuffism' isn't a great argument, I think there's definitely merit to looking at how other articles about predictions can be accepted and even recognised as Good Articles by the Wikicommunity. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, I’m not saying that article exists so this one must, specifically. I’m saying that article’s existence starkly disproves the supposed general principle that there can be no article about the future. But really, it should be self-evident because so much of science and the humanities are about “predictions”: snow will melt when the temperature rises above freezing, children will be healthier if they grow up without violence, risk of WW3 will be lower if nuclear weapons don’t proliferate, and so on.
 * That this is a notable subject suitable for a standalone article is attested by the twenty links on the subject provided in the proposal above. IMO, they only cover an aspect of the subject, which includes potential Ukrainian loss or Russian victory too. —Michael Z. 15:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "Keep" - It seems perfectly reasonable to me to have an article about notable predictions about the Russo-Ukrainian war (and indeed I would prefer that as a title). Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And why can't that be done in the main article or any of its many sub-articles?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One could for example say that the main article is way too long (215,499 bytes), above the recommendation of splitting after the article reaches 100,000 bytes. What subpages could be appropriate? Super   Ψ   Dro  08:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends on the specific content/prediction we are talking about. Much of what is in this article likely is not notable or important enough for any other article (main or sub). The fact that some politician said that Ukraine will win (probably isn't). But perhaps some content here is. This is a fork article. If this content isn't appropriate in the main article, it shouldn't be here. Sure sometimes articles get too long and forks are necessary. Here the main issue is the value and quality of most if not all of the content. But also the way it is being used to be an OR speculative article about a possible future event contrary to CRYSTAL. Some of the content here might be worth saving. I am not sure any of it is though, because at this point this article is nothing but a flagrant violation of CRYSTAL.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * The apparent assumptions you've decided to stick to regarding this article such as that it is a WP:OR fabrication, that this article is a flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL or simplifications like some politician said that Ukraine will win are not productive to the discussion. If this article does violate Wikipedia politics will be decided by the outcome of this AfD. I do not believe discussion based on these personal assumptions which as evidenced here are not shared by all other editors is appropriate.
 * As for a merge. I do not see any reason why some information here would not be appropriate for Russo-Ukrainian War. Again though there is a wide coverage of sources on this article's subject and the main article is way too long. One may also think on the potential length this article can reach. There are many other aspects that can still be included in this article, backed by reliable sources. That would only make a potential merge harder. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a place for opinion pieces, nor should aggregate them. Marcelus (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - a clearly notable topic with extensive coverage. Articles like Dissolution of Russia and Partition of Belgium exist, which are both obviously hypothetical, so this article should be allowed to keep existing according to established practice on Wikipedia.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay topic, not an encyclopedia topic. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Notable topic with plenty of reliable sources as other editors have mentioned. Perhaps having it focused more generally on potential outcomes of the war/predictions rather than just a Ukrainian victory would help alleviate some concerns. BogLogs (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an unnecessary fork of Russo-Ukrainian War since while a war is ongoing winning is a hypothetical, and political discussion about the war of course includes that possibility. This article is a compendium of discussions by allies, and this is covered adequately in Russo-Ukrainian_War. Anything that isn't already in that section could be added, but I see no reason to emphasize this as a hypothetical. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Mellk (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly there have been many reliable sources discussing the probable course of, and scenarios regarding the end of, the war in Ukraine. However, I agree that a title such as Predictions Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War would be an improvement. --Shimbo (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Per WP:NOT] and [[WP:CRYSTAL. One might as well write an article about a hypothetical Russian victory.
 * I say "weak" because the topic itself might be suitable, but the article itself, as it currently stands, absolutely isn't.
 * Draft space exists for a reason.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete as I don't think this page would be more than an aggregation of opinion pieces. This is different from articles like future of Earth where scientific conclusions can be drawn from empirical data, and confident extrapolations can be created. BeŻet (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT. I like more information on wikipedia. This isn't informative. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL, they may win, they may lose they may cease to exist in a nuclear fireball. We do not know and such predictions are the province of blogs and sears, not an encyclopedia. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They're clearly not the province of blogs and sears when we have think tanks and major newspapers discussing them. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Major newspapers also contain horoscopes and other non-encyclopedic predictions and speculation. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because something appears in a newspaper does not make it worthy of an article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename to Hypothetical ending of the Russo-Ukrainian war or other more appropriate name, as suggested in talk Talk:Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War . Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Highly speculative, and I echo the comment that this reads as an aggregation of opinion pieces. Some of this can be selectively included in the main article, but this isn't really encyclopedia material. Reywas92Talk 21:40, 17 February 2023 (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.