Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information warfare against Ukraine after Orange revolution


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Information warfare against Ukraine after Orange revolution

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

POV-essay. There is no references to any Information campaign of Russian government at all. Two reference about an extremist leader of a minority party Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one about withdrawing some trade privileges and one (in an internet forum!) about a demonstration on Ukraine. Alex Bakharev 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Horribly POV starting from the title itself. I could see a potential for the News coverage of Ukraine in Russia after the Orange Revolution article but this would have to be written from scratch and the current text would have been totally useless for it. This so called article looks to me as a plainly ax-grinding exercise by someone. --Irpen 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now New-ish user. Article should be tagged for the issues it has and some time given to fix them and perhaps fix the name etc. Obviously it is mostly rubbish but should at least be given some time (more than 1 day!) for the aurthor to fix it and provide sources in the media (which do apparently exist)--Dacium 04:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that an encyclopedic NPOV article can be made under this title? In general it is possible to have an article about Ukraine's coverage in Russia but that's gotta be under a neutral title (see above) and would have been written from scratch. --Irpen 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious bullsh*t. KNewman 09:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. On the general case, information operations are likely to be extremely difficult to hold wikipedia articles on. MLA 11:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. NPOV is nowhere near in sight.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, as far as I can see the worse thing about this article is the title. With the given sources (and most of them from Prawda), one could construct a conspiracy theory. The question of debate is whether it should be included in a encyclopedia. Hitting a new editor with the whole book after one day of editing is certainly not the way to make him understand why we don't see room for a certain article. Instead someone should have started by leaving a message indicating the relevant guidelines. Alf photoman 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Too much original research and POV to make it salvageable. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Loads of NPOV and article fails WP:OR. Telly  addict  17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently POV. -- Black Falcon 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename, and renominate in a week. New article, give the POV name a renaming to something less inflammatory and clean up. if not fixed in 7 days, renominate. there are a lot of valid sources, but the article-as is isn't very good. Failing that, userfy and let him try again later. - Denny 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-POV --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT- The article is relevant to the existing problem! KEEP IT - No POV or DELETE is not an argument! You just prove to be chauvinistic.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.172.91 (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete and salt. Usalvageably POV. No way to make an NPOV article under this name.  The fact that a new editor wrote it does not bring about a whole different set of policies... just a moral responsibility to explain more than usual what we are doing and why.  Jerry lavoie 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ÝOU SHOULD LIVE NOW IN UKRAINE TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY PROBLEM the same way as you should live in Poland to see how the joint forces of Nazi and Communists in 1939 ripped the country. USSR denied that for 70 years. The article has the full right for existence as there is a real problem! If you did not see it, or just don't want to pay attention to it, it does not mean there is no problem! I agree that probably the name in not that OK. As well as if you live in UK, Germany, Canada and don't know that people in Africa die from hunger because they don't have 1$ a day does not mean that there is not such a problem. Olgerd 10:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * TITLE AND ARTICLE AMENDED Olgerd 13:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Attempt to turn WP into war zone. This topic needs time to be researched with hindsight and w/o emotions running full. OR if you want. Pavel Vozenilek 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that article is controversial from different points of view, as many articles here. However there is no argumentation - just DELETE and POV?! I have made some amendments and complitely changed the Title, while I have added a list of references and links to the mass-media sources and opinions of the government officials. I still need your balanced & argumented (!) comments in order to improve the article. Thank you. --Olgerd 17:49, 26 February 2007 (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.