Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prykarpattia


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Theo polisme  02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Prykarpattia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article describes exactly the same geographical region as Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. There is no reason to have two articles, one for the "geographical" (Prykarpattia) and one for the "administrative" (Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast) area. They are exactly the same place. Keizers (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 8.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge Keep . (Disclaimer: I restored this article after it was redirected). First, geophysical regions are separate from administrative as concepts, even if the territory overlaps. Things like mountain ranges, lowlands, highlands, valleys and so on are notable, even if often poorly covered in sources (but this is just as true for administrative entities, particularly - non-English). I estimate that about 80% of entries from pl:Regionalizacja fizycznogeograficzna Polski (Polish Wikipedia version of regions of Poland, with a much more detailed coverage of geophysical regions of Poland) are missing from en wiki. The solution is to write more entries. And they are notable; with regards to Prykarpattia (which may need to be renamed), a search for Polish sources on the Podkarpacie (the region name in Polish) gives 13k hits on Google Books, and none of them refer to the relatively recent administrative region (here's an English language ref mentioning the "Podkarpacie region":, and a quick search shows dozens more, seemingly more popular than Prykarpattia). It is a name for a region near Carpathian Mountains, and while such entities are not as obvious as mountains, they have their (notable) space in the encyclopedias of geography. Anyway, the nom's argument is based on claiming this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, so let me stress and repeat again that this is not one (a geographical region has a separate notability from an administrative one). Also, simply looking at the maps of the administrative division (File:Map of Ukraine political simple Oblast Iwano-Frankiwsk.png) and geographical division (File:Carpathians division.svg, region marked as roman I) shows that the "complete overlap" claim is likely false (also, part of Podkarpacie is in modern Poland, not in Ukraine...). PS. Some further investigation shows we have an article on that region in an even more stubbish form, but at a name that seems more popular in English literature, at Subcarpathia, so: merge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it truly is a different geographic territory then I would agree with you. But everything I read said that the regions were the same, i.e. Prykarpattya = Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. Plus, I had understood Prykarpattya to be primarily a historic region designation - and not specifically the place for natural features information to be contained. I believe that it was created as part of a series of historical-cultural regions of the territory that is today Ukraine. If indeed Prykarpattya has slightly different borders than Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, which still IMO is the only justification for separate articles, someone should research and provide that definition in the articles, if there will be two again. So far I am not convinced and I think it is kind of a similar situation to making three articles for, say, Cuba (political unit); Cuba (geographic unit) and Cuba (cultural-historical unit) - obviously this would not be logical.Keizers (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm. Cuba - country. Cuba (geographic unit) = Cuba (island) = geography of Cuba. Cuba (cultural-historical unit) = history of Cuba/culture of Cuba. Want to try this with, umm, North America or United States? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure there are subarticles for those topics on Cuba, but all the information (geography, culture, political unit) is summarized in the main article called Cuba. So it should be for this region if it is one and the same place, it should have an article called Prikarpattya or Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast with all aspects, and then if there are subarticles for culture and geography, fine. But to have an article called Prikarpattya that deals with geographic features and/or culture and then a completely differently named article Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast which deals only with political administration is just not right, IMO. I'm not sure about the analogy with United States & North America, those are two very different geographical units, with the US being one-half or one-third of the North American continent. Not exactly the same place, as appears to be the case with Prikarpattya/I.F. Oblast.Keizers (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is not the same place as Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. It is a region covering parts of several countries, not only Ukraine, especially if we look at its history, in which national borders have often shifted. This title should pretty obviously be redirected to the region's English name, Subcarpathia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As Phil notes, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the history/geography of the region. This geographical region should not be seen as a subtopic for modern Ukrainian administrative entity, which doesn't even share the exact same borders. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely fine then! Can somebody please state that in the article then and provide a source? The original article said that Prikarpattya was the same as IF Oblast! That was the whole reason I merged!Keizers (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Many geographical entities match or closely match political entities in boundaries, currently or historically, but they are not the same thing.  So I would not want to merge with the oblast article.  However, the English translation of this term in Ukranian (Прикарпаття) appears to be Carpathia, so it is possible that we need to merge this with another geographical article, such as Subcarpathia.  (The maps on both as of now seem to identify a similar area).--Milowent • hasspoken  14:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Slon02 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Due to the above discussion I now favor keeping the separate article Prykarpattia, thanks to User Slon02 who clued me in to the Ukrainian-language article uk:Прикарпаття, which (thanks to Google Translate) really does provide a lot of information about the geographical extent of the area and its cultural-historical attributes. Granted, it does not have great sources, but since the region is part of Ukraine today, I am tempted to put great stock in the Ukrainian-language article. The article really shows that Prykarpattia is not exactly the same as Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. The Ukrainian article states: According to modern interpretation Prykarpattya [consists of] most of the Ivano-Frankivsk region…Although historically…Prykarpattya also includes Boikivshchyna, Hutsul, Opole (Ukrainian region, not the one which today is part of Poland!) and Pokuttya.


 * Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus has been saying that Prykarpattya is actually larger than that and consists of region I (Roman numeral I) on this map: File:Carpathians_division.svg - meaning that the region extends into today's Poland. But in fact that map states that region I is "Subcarpathian depressions". No reliable source stating that region I is the same as "Prykarpattia". Absolutely everything else I have seen states that Prykarpattya is inside of today's Ukraine and is the same as or very close to the border of Ivano-Frankivsk oblast'. So I have deleted that map from the article Prykarpattia until it can be proven with a source.


 * As for merger with Subcarpathia, that does not make sense at all, as Prykarpattia is a sub-region of Subcarpathia. However, a bullet point can be added in the Subcarpathia article to indicate that Prykarpattya is part of Subcarpathia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizers (talk • contribs) 02:29, November 16, 2012
 * I don't see why you'd say so - based on interlinks and reading of Polish sources, it seems to me that Prykarpattia is another, less popular name for Subcarpathia. Regarding the map, it does not cite it sources (but so few of our maps do), and Plik:Carpathians Subcarpathia.svg states that I = Podkarpacie = Subcarpathian depressions, according to the map author. There is also a very nice map at File:Physico-Geographical Regionalization of Poland.png which does show some locations of Podkarpacie region in Poland. According to pl:Regionalizacja fizycznogeograficzna Polski, there are several subdivisions of Podkarpacie/Subcarpathia (Western, Eastern, Northern), each with a number of smaller subdivisions. Note that Oświęcim Basin (one of the few geographical divisions of Poland on that level we actually have an article on), located quite far from Ukraine, seems to be on the far western end of the Northern Subcarpathia, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Distinct geographical area. No reason not to have articles on both the physical and the administrative, per WP:NOTPAPER.  The Interior  (Talk) 09:01, 16 November 2012 (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.