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. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEBCRIT, it has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", the only source currently included falls under the exception for trivial coverage. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speed keep for obvious reason (such as Ukrainian Wikipedia is the fastest-growing among Wikipedias); reprimand nominator at WP:ANI per WP:TROLL. Ukrained2012 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrained2012 sent me a warning for "deliberately introducing incorrect information" for no other reason than starting this AfD. What he did not do was proving that the Ukraininan Wikipedia has been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works", which is one of the requirements for keeping this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think there are any requirements for keeping the articles that reflect issues of common knowledge, such as the one on the official Wikimedia Foundation project with 400.000+ legitimately-kept articles that repeatedly held official WP meets and events. Ladies and gentlemen, as a busy editor, I lack knowledge of Wikipedia procedures needed to properly qualify the actions of this AfD's nominator, and asking for help with that. My humble guesses are WP:TROLL and WP:DISRUPT, but in no way am I accusing anyone in anything. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Personally, I think this is a preposterous nomination! Is the nominator kidding? There are 46 interwiki articles on the same topic — is the nominator seriously suggesting that all of these are spurious? One can only say that no one has worked on the article so far to provide good references — this is a far cry from disingenuously quoting WP:WEBCRIT to imply that the topic Ukrainian Wikipedia has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". --Very trivial (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links don't count as published works for the purpose of WP:WEBCRIT, obviously. You're free to try and prove the existence of actual non-trivial coverage rather than dismissing the question as absurd. Unless this can be established, the article should be deleted, per policy.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that interwiki links equal "published works", so please refrain from twisting my words to further your argument. If you didn't understand what I said, I'll repeat it in another way: the issue you raise is one of notability and you are spuriously trying to equate lack of references in the article, with lack of notability. You are asserting that the article is not significant because the web site has "not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". This is an extraordinary claim! You are using the fallacious argument that because the article has no references, the subject ie. the 14th largest Wikipedia in the World is not significant and has to be deleted! Even without further work on the article, I believe that a reasonable person presented with the fact that 46 other language Wikipedias regard Ukrainian Wikipedia as a significant enough article to have on their language Wikipedias, would question what drove you to make this nomination?? This type of vexatious nomination for destroying an article only wastes the energy of editors who could be doing more useful work actually improving articles. --Very trivial (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikipedias have different inclusion policies so that's irrelevant to the AfD. What is relevant is the presence, again, of sources that meet webcrit, of which there are none currently.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Even coverage in English coverage is far beyond trivial: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Concerning non-English sources, the subject had been covered over 1,000 times in Ukrainian and Russian language sources, see uk:ВП:ППВ. The article in its current version also has references to scholarly articles on the subject by O. Chyrkov and A. Bondarenko as well as a publication in one of the leading national newspapers, Den — NickK (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: User:Very trivial has added several sources and new content, if this is coming from reliable and third-party sources I don't object to keeping the article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BEFORE: it has been improved, and could be even better if someone who reads Ukrainian could translate parts of the article from that Wiki. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.