Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4


 * 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 the content, discuss the rest.. This is a dreadfully messy discussion. There is clearly no appetite for deletion, and nobody has challenged the content on the substance. There are reasonable arguments that this is redundant and should be merged, and other reasonable arguments for a split. And there are genuine original research concerns with the title that have not been rebutted. The title, and the need for a standalone page, could benefit from further discussion but given that this is already a hot mess, and that AfD isn't really the venue for discussing a merger or a retitling, I'm closing this before it gets any worse. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4

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

The talk page regarding the discussion is available here []

Redirect or Delete could be an option due to the article is a duplicate version of Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * IMHO the above is not a nomination for deletion. No reason for deletion has been suggested here.  So this is should be speedily closed as an administrative matter, IMHO.


 * And, frankly, Talk:Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine seems a more sensible place for discussion on phases to occur, among topic-informed editors, rather than calling in all the AFD-focused editors to !vote who are not much informed. AFD shouldn't butt in on sensible editing discussion going on.  And they don't need an AFD to make an editing decision to merge back material that had been separated.


 * Also, participants here should know that there's also ongoing Articles for deletion/War in Ukraine 2023, about dividing by objective matter of calendar year, as opposed to dividing by subjective "phases". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge: I suggest that the phase 4 page could be merged into the phase 3 page. Each date that appears in both pages can be examined, and the best material placed in the phase 3 page.  As noted above, the bulk of the discussion of this issue is on the Talk page.  John Sauter (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If it's decided to be merged, then there should be no deletion of content. All the information is important. Some of it may indeed be redundant (on both pages), but the point is that it should be read and moved, if not present on "phase 3". In case of duplicate information, the "phase 3" article version should be preferred, because it has a much larger number of frequent editors to ensure quality content. GMRE (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My thought was that all information would be preserved. Any item in the phase 4 page that is not in the phase 3 page would be copied to the phase 3 page.  For any item that appears in both pages, the items can be merged, making sure to keep any information on the phase 4 page that is not already present in the phase 3 page.  Once this process is complete the phase 4 page can be deleted. John Sauter (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge Half-kratos21 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My edit to phase 3 got reverted, which caused both pages to be identical, they were only distinct for about 10 minutes. I'd also like to add that we we're having a discussion on this issue in the talk page and we came to 2 solutions, I had hoped @Pranesh Ravikumar would respect this discussion and not rush a decision with a deletion request. therefore, I say Withdraw proposal as we were already discussing the page's future.

Great Mercian (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Great Mercian - The discussion has already happened in the main page of timiline of the 2022 Russian invasion of the ukraine on creation of new phase 4. You can go through the talk page here -[]. After taking WP: CONSENSUS only nominated for deletion if you need to provide your opinion in the deletion discussion provide either stating these things Delete, Comment, Merge orRedirect for Admins to decide the end result. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you wanna go through that again? I couldn't understand what you were saying. Great Mercian (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia,  and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge any distinct information back to phase 3. The whole point of the "phase" terminology in the timeline articles was to reflect the "phases" in the main 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Why was this created without consensus? --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good point. The "keep" choice should include updating the invasion article to distinguish a fourth phase. John Sauter (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep we are very clearly in a 4th phase now and we need to reflect that. Great Mercian (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as an administrative matter as there is no deletion rationale given in the nomination. Do see also Articles for deletion/War in Ukraine 2023, by the way. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the nomination, it says the article is a duplicate version of Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3. That is rationale, via WP:CONTENTFORK. HappyWith (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's only a duplicate because I moved the duplicate information to phase 4, which then got reverted. Great Mercian (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doncram Attached in the nomination about the talk page which started after an edit in the main article here There was a new article created here . As the timeline of phase 3 got reverted and phase 3 has been updated up till 20th January 2023 comparatively to phase 4. Could you advise the reason for Speedy Keep. In the deletion discussion about War in Ukraine 2023 the nominator @Fram stated that A well-intentioned effort, but the war isn't fought on a year-by-year basis, and we already have a series of timelines giving the chronological overview; the current one is Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4, and a new one will be created when necessary. So far the discussion on the timeline of phase 4 talk page attached here was whether the article phase 4 is necessary. As you can go through talk page for further information about its necessity. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "Speedy Keep" is appropriate when an AFD nomination is not constructive, e.g. when it is mal-formed, or out of order, or a matter of trolling, or duplicative to an ongoing discussion that was already working, or otherwise when it just won't be productive, as here. Here, the nomination statement is literally "The talk page regarding the discussion is available here 1", i.e. it is a pointer to a place where discussion is going.  It is okay for an editor to call attention to a discussion by posting notices at WikiProjects, say, as long as the notices are not unduly biased, selective, widespread (see wp:CANVAS for guidance).  If you really want to invite "AFD editors" to that discussion for some reason, you could post a notice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.  The "nomination" does go on to say "'Redirect' or 'Delete' could be an option due to the article is a duplicate version of Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3";  that looks like a comment one could make within an AFD, if there were an AFD ongoing, but it does not state a clear position (you are just observing that, if an AFD were happening, some other editor might say "Redirect, because of duplication", but you didn't communicate what you want or why.  To be valid an AFD nomination must include an explicit assertion by the nominator that a given article should be deleted, and it must give reasons.  And in a situation where important discussion is going on elsewhere, i suppose the nominator must also give clear reasons why having a separate AFD is required, at the other discussion.
 * And, I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean by "Attached in the nomination about the talk page which started after an edit in the main article here." That's not a sentence, and I really don't understand what you mean. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Can I ask what the point of that comment was? if anything you seem to be regurgitating information from that deletion request and the history logs of the phase 3 page. I don't think this really supports your argument (which I am highly inclined to assume you are in the 'delete' camp). May I also remind you that we were having a discussion on the talk page before you set up this request, and at no time at all did you give any indication that you had or were intending to submit a deletion request. I don't think you're actually being very productive in this discussion. could you please justify why you nominated this article for deletion (aside from the duplicate argument, which I have had to reiterate my response over and over again), perhaps then I could probably see where you're coming from. Many thanks, Great Mercian (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doncram What I mentioned about the 'Attached in the nomination about the talk page which startled after an edit in the main article' is that the talk page about phase 4? started after the an major edit was made in phase 3 . The reason it was brought to AFD is that the @Tol, @John Sauter, @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, and @Curbon7 agreed that since the reliable sources does not mentioned about phase 4 the edit seems to be an WP:OR. After taking WP:CONSENSUS from contributors of the same topic nominated for AFD and not WP:CANVAS as you can go through there were discussion in the talk page.
 * @Doncram - Could you advise whether the there is a need of Phase 4 or not?. In case of need for phase 4 please do provide your reliable sources for the same. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, I guess, but no I will not. Isn't the question of whether a "Phase 4" exists under discussion at the place you pointed to in your nomination.  AFAICT, it should be discussed and resolved there.  This AFD was messy from the start, IMHO, and it is getting messier as it goes along, including because of my own participation and disputing.  I don't care about "winning" the AFD discussion, but this dispute all adds up to more reason this AFD should be closed as an administrative matter (because the question of "Phase 4 or not" is being decided somewhere else).  It would be helpful now if some administrator could step in, please, and give guidance (the "Phase 4 or not" question is to be resolved where?).  If the answer is here, contrary to my view, then please close the other discussion and inform us here that that has been done.  Or close this because this is a mess, and start a new, clean AFD with a clear nomination.  PLEASE! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather he not start a new nomination, I am tired of justifying this article it's all falling on deaf ears. Great Mercian (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Great Mercian. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 05:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Great Mercian. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 10:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am not commenting on the specifics of this case, but I just want to remind that we should not be legislating if something has entered a new phase or not, as that is WP:OR.; instead, we should be reflecting on whether or not reliable sources are calling this phase 4. If yes, then keep. If not, then merge. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoever said this was original research? splitting a page does not constitute original research. I am getting tired of trying to defend this page, why can't people just accept it? Great Mercian (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling it phase 4 when no reliable sources are doing so is an OR-derived title. If RS are calling it phase 4, then it's fine. Simple as. Curbon7 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Afaics just quickly looking, the phase 3, 2, 1 and 'prelude' articles are also OR on that basis. Timeline articles are often organized by date (time) rather than events (maybe an outline?). Descriptive titles are OK, but maybe better descriptions than Phase 1, 2...are needed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please just accept the page, this entire discussion is physically draining for me and now really isn't the time. Great Mercian (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Best to produce arguments for keep. Fwiw, I think if its OK to have a phase 1, 2, 3 then its also OK to have a phase 4, the problem is getting consensus on when a phase ends/starts. The phases are apparently supposed to match up with the periods in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article (also see Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). On that basis, phase 3 is supposed to be Ukrainian counteroffensives which I would agree do seem to have stopped/paused ftb. I think I agree with Doncram, better to talk it out on Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in order to define a phase 4 (or just do away with phases and organize by time). Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When? Should I wait until this nomination is closed? Great Mercian (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Up to you, if it was me, I would just go ahead and do it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier Thanks for your inputs - Just an clarification from your end so phase 4 is fine could be created without WP:RS inputs. In that case could editors create each phase for each month based on editors thoughts following WP:OR ignore the WP:RS inputs. Prelude was basically an insight of previous updates before invasion announcement from President Putin, after that Phase two was when attack started in Odesa which is located in southern region, after that Phase three was Ukraine counteroffensives. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Odesa wasn't attack, unless you're refering to the 1000s of strikes that occurred there. Great Mercian (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't entirely know what to do, and as I said the nomination is still open, I feel uncomfortable finally deciding with this still open. Great Mercian (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just make the argument as best you can. I can't help feeling that if it was auto divided in periods that would avoid the OR and the need to define each phase. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all really overwhelming. Great Mercian (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep but initiate discussion at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on the definition for a phase 4 (or possibly do away with phases as seems a bit ORish). AfD seems ott right now, the material appears to be OK, just lacking an agreement on defining a phase 4.Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep but per above, we need to be sure to have clear agreement on what Phase 4 is (and by that, I mean "clear agreement by expert, reliable sources outside of Wikipedia" and not "clear agreement by a bunch of randos on a Wikipedia talk page"). I think AFD is a poor tool for the purpose of making such a decision, and the article talk pages would be better for this.  -- Jayron 32 15:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsure, but consider the subtitles. The "phase 3" article is subtitled "Ukrainian counteroffensives" and the "phase 4" article is subtitled "Second stalemate". So if we go by the subtitles, as the definitions of those "phases", then the "phase 4" article makes perfect sense. However, in light of recent events (newer tanks being approved for Ukraine (Leopard 2 and possibly Abrams later), new AA missile systems being sent soon (Patriot) and the u.s. approving the targeting of Crimea), it seems that a second major wave of counterattacks will begin in another month, or two, once all the new equipment is delivered and the crews are done training. That means that the "stalemate" will last until then. So then it becomes a matter of is the article big/short/long enough to hold two counterattack waves and a stalemate in between? And in any case, there obviously is a stalemate now and we have no definitive way of knowing how long it will last. GMRE (talk) 20:47, 24 January 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.