Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to Azov Battalion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azov Special Purpose Regiment

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Azov Special Purpose Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant WP:POVFORK with article text copied cite numbers and all from elsewhere and personal opinions scattered throughout in Elinruby's own voice (I have struck the preceding line. What I thought were personal comments were infact unattributed quotes that had been poorly copied). Any notability this name has indicates its an organizational rebrand of Azov after it's integration with the Ukrainian National Guard, and I can find no evidence that it is at all an actually separate organization. Is a potential Redirect but should otherwise be Deleted. BSMRD (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several meaning you and Elinruby? - hako9 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
??? No, that means user Ymblanter who started the thread about merge and others. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9: I don't know who supported a merge. I personally said maybe, too soon to tell. Please keep my name out of your mouth unless you are willing to be accurate. Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion. We can import some information (those with sources) from this article into the main Azov article.--Mhorg (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:Merge and delete , you can't do that. It is a problem with attribution if you delete the page that something was cut from. You could redirect it after merging whatever small portion you want merged, but you cannot delete it. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe merge later The description above misrepresents the article and is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    • I am trying very hard to assume good faith here but may of the nom's concerns have been addressed and the these answers have been dismissed with ad hominems.
    • The article nominated for deletion is a literal translation from the Ukrainian article -- tagged as such -- about the unit of the Ukrainian National guard, and is merely one of dozens such translations I have done over the years.
    • It still has the reference numbers from the Ukrainian article because the references have to be translated in by hand and the numbers help me match it up to the original. This has been done for the first few references and would probably have been finishec by now if only I weren't currently being wikilawyered. At least one of these imported references is quite excellent and I have suggested that they use it at Azov Battalion to help remedy the POV problems over there and the utter failure to give any weight to the action in combat of a military unit that is currently keeping Russians out of Mariupol, preferring to spend ink trying to demonstrate with bad sources (see current post at RS) that this unit is somehow Nazi. It either is or it isn't, but the current sources don't prove that, yet some really good suggested sources *that actually support this contention* have been dismissed out of hand.
    • AGF, the nom is rather new and perhaps hasn't yet encountered the portion of the RS policy that I pasted on the Azov Battalion talk page. But they don't allow anyone to explain it to them either ;)
    • But back to the article about the regiment. It should not be deleted because it covers an entity that is very notable in Ukrainian military history and provides a lot of military history information that is currently not covered in the article about the battalion. It is true that there is some overlap between the groups. It is unclear to what extent these are the same people, and while the badges etc seem to be the same, it seems to me that I have seen for example the SAS allow a French unit to use parts of its uniform. A beret I think it was.
    • In any event, the translated article has issues, which I will fix, and the Azov Battalion has quite a few more. It may however be possible to merge it into the history as the regiment if it cleans up its sourcing and we do determine it's the same group. *Since the Ukrainian article has felt a need to address this there is probably some there there, but I haven't spent a lot of time on content versus translation.
    • My mind is open on the subject but the article has been been nominated for both merger and deletion (of which I was not informed) and pretty much tag-bombed, yet it isn't even a full day old yet,
    • Yet it clearly isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, which is what the nom seems to want. Oh, and on the issue of editorializing, apart from punctuation and word order the only change to the text I have made myself was to change instances of "terrorist" to "hostile fighter" or something similar. I assume this is uncontroversial. I don't doubt that there are other issues but I want to fix the references; these are in Ukrainian, but that doesn't make them not RS as the nom appears to believe (really really needs to go read the RS policy). There are probably many English sources available for much of this but when we do translations we do the translation first, as I understand it for copyright reasons.
    • I would love to finish that btw. Are we done here? I haven't had lunch yet and the article is still less than 24 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accusing another editor of falling for IDONTLIKEIT is the easiest and least valuable of rebuttals. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Usually, yes. It does however happen to be true in this case. An article purporting it be about a military unit conflates it with several other things and does not address its military activities, which by the way only include keeping Russians from taking Mariupol. Right now. But any attempt to even discuss a change to that article — or even the reliable sources policy — is dismissed as coming from brainwashed Nazis or something. So fine. Those editors don’t want to discuss the military history. They say it isn’t notable.
    (Mariupol!)
    I translated the Ukrainian article about the military unit, exactly as I have translated dozens of other articles about military units, and am still doing. Yes it is a still work in progress, but it is already better today as an article about the regiment, than Azov Battalion. It will be fully finished out but it is already highly sourced and detailed and there is even more still at the Ukrainian article.
    There is obviously a great deal that Ukrainians think should be said about this Ukrainian military unit and clearly it is notable. Personally I think this should be a boomerang for misrepresenting a translation as some deranged editorial rant. But also for driving away new editors and refusing very valid suggestions from me and at least a dozen others, not to mention the likely massive BLP violations Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I am not reading all of that. Please use paragraph separations next time instead of walls of text. Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7: Your point is well taken and I have edited some in, plus fixed a couple of typos. I invite you to take another look if so moved. Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a single reliable source. - hako9 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a single source in English because it is a translation from the Ukrainian wikipedia, lol. This can be remedied if you guys will stop throwing temper tantrums. There are probably English citations in the world for at least some of it. At least one of the ones I have translated so far is quite excellent and I suggested on the battalion page that you guys use it also. Thank you for being exhibit A that the editors currently OWNing the brigade page don't understand the RS policy Elinruby (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's funny. Coming from someone who hasn't provided a single reliable source. - hako9 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the reliable sources policy. Elinruby (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9:, at the time you made your recent comment about no reliable sources, rev. 1078498128 of the article had nine references, almost all of which are sufficiently notable to have an article about them on English Wikipedia, including: ICTV (Ukraine) (ictv.ua), Ukrinform (ukrinform.ua), Ukrayinska Pravda (pravda.com.ua), National Guard of Ukraine (ngu), Ukrainian Independent Information Agency (unian), Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ukraine) (mvs.gov.ua), and Television Service of News (tsn.ua). Do you consider all of these unreliable for the purpose of the article under consideration? Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: They maybe notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. They are as reliable as RT/Sputnik in my personal opinion. You may well disagree with this, but since these sources aren't vetted and haven't gained a consensus through WP:RS/P, I believe, I am entitled to this opinion, inasmuch as you are to state that these are indeed reliable. But more importantly, as per WP:NONENG, However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance. I think no one would doubt, that there are mainstream perennial sources available on this subject. Since, I haven't mentioned this article being a POV fork, as my reason, allow me to state my concurrence over this. Some additional, carefully chosen and cherry picked RS have been added to this article since nomination, but all I see is a perverse version of the original article, devoid of some essential uncomfortable truths. But you can't really apply lipstick on the face of a pig and call it beautiful. - hako9 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Russian government owned propaganda media like RT and Sputnik are as reliable to you as privately owned major Ukraine news outlets, then you should really resign from expressing any opinion at all on the subject, since you are either clueless or biased towards Russia. Kyrylkov (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Azov Battalion. I don't see much here that isn't covered there, but it's pretty clear to me that we should not have two articles on the same military entity. I disagree that there is not a single ireliable source here (UA Pravda is a mainstream news organization, for example) but any sort of merge would need to be very intentional if we're to do it right since the article structures are rather different. Much of the article is currently uncited as well, which makes any potential merge difficult. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is simply a translation of the Ukrainian article? It's unfinished? (The footnotes that are merely copied numbers that don't point at references suggest that too.) Then why is this not in draft space? It's not done. There are no acceptable secondary sources. It's not well written (and that's putting it mildly). We should redirect this title to Azov Battalion, and send the article itself back to draft space. Elinruby, this should not have been placed in mainspace. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article translated from the Ukrainian Wikipedia? I was not aware of it. In this case, all the sources used must be thoroughly checked, because it is well known that Ukrainian sources have very particular interpretations of certain topics.--Mhorg (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg: It’s been tagged as a translation from the very start. Ukraine has indeed had issues with some of its media outlets being owned or controlled by Russian oligarchs, as discussed at the related Russian information war against Ukraine, which was simultaneously smothered smothered in wiki proceedings, but of course that’s just a coincidence. The sources are already vetted, but feel free to do so again. As a matter of courtesy, I’ll save you some time by drawing your attention to my recent post at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether Ukrainian Pravda had any relationship to the Russian Pravda. It does not and has a stellar reputation apparently. “Pravda” merely means “Truth” in both languages. This is the publication most frequently used in the references. The references have to be manually brought over and I did yes, pay attention to RS. I omitted one to an announcement on Facebook that merely referenced that the group had made an snnouncement, but I am dealing with people who think that references have to be in English and the announcement was just not important enough for another argument with people who refuse to read the reliable sources policy. thank you for your comment. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should be immediately deleted and the author banned. Its just blatant Ukrainian propaganda meant to spin a new narrative on the neo nazi Azov Battalion. BritishToff (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, no. We're not going to do that, not like that. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/redirect: I think the everyone involved would benefit if this article was draftified; from what the page author writes above, it seems this is an incomplete translation, so a draftification would allow them to work on the article in peace; for the rest of us, it gets the article's present form out of mainspace. I also just want to remind the author of 2 things: (1) don't use this article as a WP:POVFORK just because your arguments on another page aren't getting consensus, and (2) ensure that you give proper intra-wiki attribution if you copied any content from another article on any Wikipedia. This latter point is a requirement for copyright reasons; you can find info on this at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
credit to the Ukrainian Wikipedia was religiously given on ever single edit. Of course. I have been translating articles for a very long time now. Many of them about military units, as it happens.

It would have been courteous to check the article history before implying otherwise. Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Azov Battalion, there is no justification for having two pages about the same unit. I endorse User:Curbon7's comments above. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect to Azov Battalion as they are one and the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, redirect, merge: There is no justification for two articles, but if there is material here that would benefit the other article the best solution seems to be to draftify and then carefully merge the stronger content into the other. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be kept if we are separating the National Guard unit from the 2014 Battalion. It should be merged if wiki considers them to be the same formation. Currently there is an issue with the OG Azov page being schizophrenic where it cant decide if its about the national guard unit or the former far-right paramilitary battalion...so whatever path affects my vote. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Exactly. Except you forgot to mention the political party started by the guy who was commander for a while in 2014, and whoever it is that the Russians want us to think they are. I know that sounds cray-cray, but the Russians really do keep blaming this unit for their own most recent atrocities in Mariupol, where this unit has had a large hand in foiling their they plans :) But yeah. The Azov Battalion as it stands, is definitely not a military history article about one or even several military units. The many battles are not mentioned, nor the battle honors, nor the armaments.Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, you put a lot of comments up here; I'm just going to say a few things. a. saying stuff like "This can be remedied if you guys will stop throwing temper tantrums" is just never going to make you friends, and in the end that kind of commentary is blockable. Please stop making things personal. b. all the things you say about translating, about notes, about copy edits--all that simply strengthens me in my opinion that this should NOT be in article space, but in draft space. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is reason to separate the two. The old battalion was made part of the national guard, and there is a line of direct continuity between them. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete: I support this and agree that it's a clear POV fork largely written by a single person and should probably be deleted or at the very least redirected. The Azov Battalion article already talks about the regiment as a part of the national guard but also includes its history, as any proper encyclopedic article should. A case could perhaps be made that that article should be renamed "Azov Special Operations Detachment" with a redirect for "Azov Battalion", but this separate article is not the way to handle it. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't help your argument to state that it was written by a single person; which isn't an Afd criterion. In any case, if you meant that it was translated by one person, that's clear from the history, and also from the statements made in this discussion, but it is not relevant. For the record, the original was written by 168 editors in 686 edits over 7+ years, and then translated by one editor. Many articles on en-wiki follow a similar course, and it's a fine way to expand coverage at en-wiki. So even it should be merged or redirected, it should not be because it "was written by one person", even if that were true. Mathglot (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
good thing I am here to keep Wikipedia accurate and not to make friends. TL;DR=The nomination contains a number of extremely untrue statements Many of the ad hominems above demonstrate a fundamental misconception that reliable sources are limited to English-language Google results. If I were an admin in this thread I would find that useful information. That’s all folks Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for help at the Ukrainian Wikipedia - I made the following post there titled Asking for help from English speakers:

I have done a machine translation of this article (not ideal I realize) and lightly edited it to fix the machine translation errors. Some other editors are trying to delete it because another article titled “Azov Battalion” exists that portrays the group as a NeoNazi root of all evil. I think that the military unit that is currently fighting so valiantly against an undisputed Russian aggressor deserves an article that discusses it as a military unit. Could some editors that speak English please come talk to some of the underinformed editors who are discussing this at the English language wkipedia? I realize that many of the editors here may currently be dealing with an actual threat to world freedom, but if anyone is currently safe and can comment if would help get some truth out.

Since we’ve established that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion, can we please allowing that post some time to reach some English speakers that are currently safe and not preoccupied with survival? The odds of any of this material making it into the current battalion article anytime soon are at the moment approximately zero, since I am still trying to explain the Reliable Sources policy on the talk page there and being called a brainwashed Nazi for thinking that a reliable source should discuss the topic does not need to be in English. There are a couple of posts about this at the Reliable Sources board, but it’s slow going as no one human could possibly write up all the jaw-dropping statements there, keep up with this AfD, and deal with the simultaneous retaliatory and insult-ridden request for merge at the related article Russian information war against Ukraine. Elinruby (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I please note that this is known as WP:CANVASSING and might be a blockable offence. Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I please reply that I notified the editors of an article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia about people who are keeping Russians out of Europe that wiklawyers are trying to censor a translation of their work? In what way would they not be interested parties? May I please also note that editors of the battalion article are calling friends in to an entirely pointless request for merge started at Russian information war against Ukraine minutes after I tried to explain to the the two-year-old requestor that they do not understand the reliable sources policy? I am happy for this discussion to proceed as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be stampeded by appeals to emotion and allow the time for interested parties to find their way out of the kill zone in Mariupol and say something about it. Everything I am doing against sneaks I am doing out loud and with notification and in the broad light of day. If trying to prevent censorship gets me blocked then heh, fine, I don’t think that would be Wikipedia anymore anyway. It will however have been a sweet dream while it lasted. Elinruby (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So you have found a Wikipedia which can not be expected to be neytral on this question, translated an article from there thereby creating a POV fork, and now canvassed non-neutral editors to come here and to defend this POV fork.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
notif[ying] the editors of an article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia about people who are keeping Russians out of Europe that wiklawyers are trying to censor a translation of their work? is a textbook case of 'campaigning' per WP:CANVASSING. This is actually the second time I've seen you engage in WP:INAPPNOTE behavior regarding this topic, the first being at this discussion where you seemingly posted on the talk page of everyone who had posted on the Azov Battalion talk page in the past 6 months, which is 'spamming'. BSMRD (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What this user writes only shows that he is not willing to collaborate with the construction of the encyclopedia but is moved by other intentions such as defending his own country. I'm sorry, but reading all of his messages this is obvious. I think some administrators should be notified to intervene. It is enough to scroll through all the messages here and in the other discussion pages to realize this without any effort.--Mhorg (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to previous assertions, it is not canvassing to list a request for help on "[t]he talk page of one or more directly related articles" (WP:APPNOTE bullet #3). If one individually notified only those editors found to have similar views to one's own by checking their Talk page contributions first, that would be canvassing. Making a public request for assistance at a Talk page where any editor can see it is specifically allowed. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above notification strikes as a little betwixt and between. Granted it's not a "stealth" notification -- mainly because the user told us, right up there. But by no stretch of the imagination is it an APPNOTE, given the lack of neutral wording, and the choice of audience. OK yes, it's at a "directly related article"... on a different project. With different rules, outside the scope of our own, and almost certainly their own understanding of which NPOV on this issue might be. At least that's how I'd interpret "article" and "off-wiki" in this context; of course one might have come to the good-faith belief that it means "on any wikipedia", or even "on any wikimedia project". Anyhoo, it's in AN/I's hands now, where it appears to be trending 'sanctions needed' fairly fast. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the many comments above we do not need to have another article covering the same thing. The large sections of uncited text do not make me think a merge is needed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per other comments above. If there's any salvageable RS information it should be merged. Intothatdarkness 12:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge anything reliably sourced that's missing from target article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Unneccessary fork by an editor for all the wrong reasons(Pick a comment above for specific wrong reasons).Slywriter (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this WP:POVFORK to Azov Battalion. Miniapolis 22:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect per My very best wishes. I'd also ask whether there's a guideline on how we deal with successor organizations, if that is the case here; some examples have two articles, some don't. Case-by-case? Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the most relevant guideline is WP:SUMMARY. They're so closely related that we'd in the first instance have a single article covering all the incarnations and transmogfrications of this movement/battalion/regiment/etc, likely with sections on each. When those sections clearly establish independent notability, or are just too heckin' chonky for a single article any more, we'd retain a small such section, hatted with {{main}}, and split the bulk of it out separately into a new separate "sub-article". Obviously there's also the issue of when this is either motivated by, or provides an occasion of sin for, a WP:POVFORK. WP:AVOIDSPLIT in particular (part of the first page) and WP:SPINOUT (in the second) say a little more on the distinction. Don't know of anything specific to successor orgs as such, sorry. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete, clearly an attempt to POVFORK. Each wikipedia also had different standards for sourcing, and looking at the fact that most of the news come from state-owned media with questionable editorial independence, I wouldn't have high hopes that these are considered reliable on english wikipedia. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to Azov Battalion - WP:POVFORK - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:08, 28 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Azov_Special_Purpose_Regiment&oldid=1079845818"