Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia)

Add links
Extended-protected page
From 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 delete. Those supporting deletion primarily cited WP:POVFORK and WP:CRYSTALBALL issues. These arguments were also cited by the people supporting a merge or redirection. Those supporting keeping the article primarily argued that there is a separate legal entity (described as "de jure" by some) and situations/disputes like Taiwan have (at least) two distinct articles. This was refuted by noting this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as well as the fact that the dispute around Taiwan is decades-old, while the situation in Ukraine/Russia is changing every day. Legoktm (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kherson Oblast (Russia)

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

Kherson Oblast (Russia) (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)
Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think it is a good idea to have two articles about the same region, one for each country which claims the territory. Have one article which describes the situation, in this case Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast, instead of two. WP:FORK issues.

Also nominated for the same reasons: Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) Fram (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the de-jure federal subject of Russia. Delete the Republic of Crimea in the same case in which you delete these two articles. PLATEL (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Kherson Oblast is legally distinct from Ukrainian whether that's de-facto or de-jure. Not to mention the actual border definition of Russian Kherson Oblast is distinct from Ukrainian by the addition of Snigurovka Raion from Nikolaev Oblast. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, this is a distinct new federal subject, strongly disagree with these being deleted. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Distinct from what? The claims that the borders aren't 100% identical is so far not supported in any article here, and I can't immediately find any reliable sources that make that claim either[1]. Having two articles for the same current region only makes it harder to keep things straight and to avoid partisan editing of one or the other. Fram (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does not appear true. Saldo announced that part of Nikolaev is a part of the Russian Kherson oblast, so this does have a distinct definition for its borders from the Ukrainian counterpart. I’ll try to find a proper source for this shortly and link it here Serafart (talk) (contributions) 21:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further research, I haven’t really been able to find many reliable sources on this, so if they exist, they likely won’t until proper transcriptions of the annexation documents and of the ratification by the State Duma are released. Regardless, I believe this article should be kept distinct from the article on Kherson as a part of Ukraine, as it is an article on the legal entity that is Kherson Oblast, of which the Ukrainian entity and the Russian entity are separate. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the removal of the articles. Kherson / Zaporizhia Oblast according to of this article is an administrative unit of the Russian Federation, not of Ukraine. Moreover, due to the nature of the case and the lack of international recognition for the annexation of the oblasts to Russia, I would call for the addition of another article on the occupation of the Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts with this article. JanPawel2025 (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this page be deleted? It is now a federal subject of Russia, no matter the legality. Norge17maii (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because most countries don't recognise it as a federal subject of Russia, it is not even completely occupied by Russia. Wikipedia doesn't create WP:POVFORKS to show what one country or what another country claims, it creates one article for a subject and describes the current situation, claims, ... Not a "Kherson is Ukrainian" article and a "Kherson is Russian" article, but an article about Kherson Oblast describing both claims. Fram (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say describing both claims, but the language on those pages at present do not represent that. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that this article should be kept. If the areas integrated into the Russian Federation, under Russian control, do not correspond with the entire Oblast; then it is more appropriate that there is this article for this new federal subject of Russia. Apart from that, this new Russian federal subject has its own flag and coat of arms distinct from those of the Ukrainian Kherson Oblast. Vgaiyfi (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC) blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the area Russia claims is, as far as sources seem to say, exactly identical to the Ukrainian oblasts. They are however claiming to have held a referendum and annexed areas they don't even control, but that doesn't make the subject of these articles any different to the subject of the existing articles. That the different claimants use different flags and coats of arms is of extremely minor importance in the whole situation, and can easily be integrated in the existing article as well. Note that we also have Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and so on, which describes the situation in more detail. Fram (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has no backing. On wikipedia, we occasionally create articles about the same place. (ex. Taiwan, Donetsk & Luhansk People's Republics vs. the Ukrainian Oblasts, Crimea, the list goes on.) Norge17maii (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also opposed to deletion – as federal subjects of Russia they are legally distinct from the Ukrainian originals. For now there is not much information about them, but they are definitely notable enough and distinct enough to have their own articles. Jacoby531 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By whose laws? It's Ukrainian territory, and Ukrainian law does not allow for them to be legally part of Russia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Crimea. PLATEL (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Ukrainian law continues to recognize only the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. However, there is an article called "Republic of Crimea" (federal subject within the Russian Federation). Vgaiyfi (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the fact that Ukrainian law does not recognize these entities does not preclude them from being notable enough to have their own articles. The standard suggested above, if consistently applied, would require the deletion of articles about many disputed territories. I assume all of us here support Ukraine, but that does not mean that the articles we create have to reflect the Ukrainian POV when it contradicts the facts on the ground. Jacoby531 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not arguing that the existing article should "reflect the Ukrainian POV", it is not Kherson Oblast (Ukraine); an article on Kherson Oblast should describe reality on the ground and both claims. Fram (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And by international law there is no such thing as the Republic of China (Taiwan). Shall we go delete the page for Taiwan? RadomirZinovyev (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, thanks for making my point. We have one article for Taiwan, not one for Taiwan (part of China) and one for Taiwan (independent). Fram (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China LOL PLATEL (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. Still is quite different when the situation existed for 70+ years instead of 1 day, and is stable instead of fluctuating every day. Fram (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly a matter of fluctation. Even if Russia did hypothetically lose this land, it remains in the Russian constitution which forbids successionism or giving away land. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? They can be added to the constitution (it hasn't even happened yet), they can be removed from the constitution, Russia could even cease to exist as a result of this "special operation", Putin could face a coup with the new leaders more than willing to go back to the old situation... Speculating that this brand new thing is now somehow enshrined forever is not really convincing. Fram (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.startribune.com/ukraines-president-no-talks-with-putin-if-its-land-annexed/600210760/, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-territory-idUSKBN20Q1DENorge17maii (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If such things happen, then it can be discussed in seriousness. But it has not happened.
All in all, this is not a compelling reason these pages shouldn't exist RadomirZinovyev (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately whether something is legal or not doesn't affect the de facto situation on the ground. There are many cases where countries, rightly or wrongly, make legal claims on the territory of another country. JackWilfred (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I've noticed more than one Russian editor pre-emptively denying being a 'rashist', a term I am unfamiliar with. Can anyone provide a definition or explanation, please? Thanks. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rashism. PLATEL (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People have already presented precedents of what you're arguing against. Your proposition goes against the standard, not affirms. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Even if a separate article for Kherson the Russian subject were necessary, the annexation has not even entered effect yet. The Duma and Federation Council must first approve the treaties signed, before sending them to Putin to approve them again. These are rubber-stamp actions sure, but they are *future* rubber-stamp actions. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My deletion nomination also applies to Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) for the exact same reasons I listed above. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The President of Russia has already signed agreements on the entry of these territories into Russia. Legal registration is a worthy argument, but the same legal documents have already been signed personally by Putin on camera source (source) PLATEL (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC) PLATEL (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He signed the treaties, yes. But this Reuters article notes that "the head of Russia's lower chamber of parliament said on Friday that President Vladimir Putin had notified the house about plans to admit four regions of Ukraine into Russia - a technical step towards Russia's annexation of the territories." According to the Russian constitution, the legislature MUST approve all treaties first, and this was done during Crimea as well. I understand that the Russian government doesn't have a great track record on constitutionality but there is every indication that Putin will go through the required procedures first. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's be honest everyone knows what will happen. At best this is a case to delay the publishing of this article rather than justification for removing it totally. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I'll keep my vote but I won't push back if it isn't. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The precedent for having multiple pages for disputed territories already exists as evidenced in Taiwan. The new Russian Oblasts employ different symbols from the Ukrainian and revert the administrative boundaries prior to the Ukrainian administrative reforms of 2020. To avoid confusion / presenting multiple sets of unrelated data, they should be kept distinct from each other. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (didn't notice that my position was not framed) I created this article to introduce the legal region of Russia. This article is written in the most unbiased way by me and not only by me. There is a FACT-that Russia has annexed the territory of Ukraine. LEGALLY AND ACTUALLY we have two regions with the same name. In order not to confuse two different official regions of different UN member countries, I created this article. This article is not about the military occupation by Russia, but about the federal subject of Russia. This article is not about the future, because with the signing of the agreement by the PRESIDENT PERSONALLY, the region became part of Russia. The fact that the accession of the occupied territories to Russia is not internationally recognized: a) is reflected in the article, and quite a strong emphasis is placed on this. b) does not affect the actual existence of this region within Russia. It's still an internationally recognized part of Ukraine, but the article is about a Russian-controlled region that Russia claims to be its own and has formalized that. PLATEL (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, as it is a clear fork of it. Wikisaurus (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about military occupation, but about the official region of Russia. These are, however, different things. Compare with German occupation of Byelorussia during World War II and Generalbezirk Weissruthenien. PLATEL (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it: the official region in Russia doesn't officially exist yet. The actual article is entirely about the occupation. The "History" section begins today. :-) There isn't even any WP:RS about this new Oblast. All of the RS are about the occupation (the annexation, the referendum, both are parts of the occupation). The only source that's actually about this Oblast is the Russian gov't page, which says the oblast was created in 1944, lol :-D What makes it a WP:FORK is that there is no (reliably-sourced) content on the new page that isn't on the old page. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I may be wrong: see Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, which is purely hypothetical, but still the article exists. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. It has not been officially established.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the purpose of WP:Draft. Cf Jefferson (proposed Pacific state) 77.191.226.214 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the article “Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast” is not about the administering authority (the Kherson military-civilian administration), even though the article talks about it.
The article titled "Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast" corresponds to Wikidata item Q111686059 (which is about the military occupation).
There is another Wikidata item, Q113580097 , which lacks an article in the English-language Wikipedia, which is about the administering authority (the Kherson military-civilian administration).
For that reason, it would be wrong to merge these articles, and it could complicate the situation a lot.
This new article, whose Wikidata item is Q114331288, corresponds to a new federal subject of the Russian Federation, and I believe it is convenient to keep it. Vgaiyfi (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC) User has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability to cite code numbers from a publicly-editable site in reference to these topics does not mean that they are actually meaningfully distinct from each other. This is basic stuff - you're hiding behind technobabble, but the basic fact is that the Russian government declaring that a dog's tail is a leg does not actually make it so. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a new federal subject of the Russian Federation (...) “Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast” article is about the ongoing military occupation. They are different topics. No. These are PRECISELY the same topic. This is a classic WP:POVFORK. Volunteer Marek 18:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. I also don't think it's a personal attack to suggest that a lot of the people voting 'Keep' here seem very personally invested in the creation of a representation of the alleged legitimacy of this illegal pretence at rulership. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren’t. We have separate articles on the occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk than their respective republics. This is an article about the legal entity that is Kherson oblast as a federal subject of the Russian Federation. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such "legal entity" according to international law. This is a fiction invented by Russian nationalists and now some editors are trying to push it on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 23:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with you, @Volunteer Marek. Going by your logics, General Government should be merged into World War II. — kashmīrī TALK 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not a good analogy at all. Volunteer Marek 23:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: It's a very good analogy – an article about an armed conflict and an article about an occupier-established administrative unit. You argue for merging such cases, right? — kashmīrī TALK 20:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a crap analogy for the simple reason that these oblasts don't actually exist. GG was established by a Nazi decree. Here? There's no law which establishes them. No definition of what they are. What their borders are. How they are governed. Who governs them. Etc. Nothing. This whole thing is made up by a Wikipedia editor. Volunteer Marek 12:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So...The General Government was a legal entity according to international law then?67.230.48.183 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious you have some unrealistic ideas about what international law is. — kashmīrī TALK 00:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Realise it might not have been clear, @Kashmiri , but I was supporting your point in asking Volunteer Marek if the General Government was a legal entity according to international law since if he is claiming it is not a good analogy then logically either the General Government was entirely legitimate according to international law and these oblasts are not, OR the General Government was illegitimate but these oblasts are legitimate. Any other permutation would mean that both the General Government and the oblasts were legitimate legal entities under international law - something which he would not seem to be arguing since he is saying the oblasts are not legal entities under international law - or that both the General Government and these oblasts are illegitimate.) 67.230.48.183 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just let me state this: (public) international law is a body of international treaties and customs adhered to in relations between states. Unlike national law, it has no mechanism to determine that an entity is "legitimate" or "illegitimate". If Government 1 decides to establish diplomatic relations with Government 2, then this act of diplomatic recognition legitimises Government 2 for Government 1 – but usually not for any other government.
Consequently, if, say, DNR or LNR were recognised by Russia or Syria, then they were independent states in international law as applied by Russia / Syria.
However, State 1 cannot "recognise" an administrative division in State 2, simply because administrative divisions are not subjects of international law. Only states (governments) are. And, needless to say, states are free to administratively divide the territory under their control as they deem fit.
This whole discussion about administrative divisions being "legitimate / illegitimate in international law" is thus misinformed. — kashmīrī TALK 05:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. An IP account with 7 edits (which are all attempts to relabel Ukrainian villages as "Russia") is complaining about NPA and linking to a Wikipedia policy with an acronym a brand new account wouldn't be aware of. But hey, at least this clarifies what the true POV purpose of these POVFORKs is. Volunteer Marek 23:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA with 7 edits. Volunteer Marek 23:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second reminder of WP:NPA 89.14.70.34 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop abusing multiple accounts. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious case. We already have both Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Kherson Oblast. This is a blatant propaganda push to (ab)use Wikipedia to fake some recognition for an obviously illegal claim. If I claimed to be Czar of Russia and created an article about me, it would be deleted pretty damn quickly. International borders are not changed simply by a declaration, and there is no such thing as a Russian oblast called Kherson. There is a Kherson oblast, and that article exist. There is also a Russian occupation of parts of that oblast, and that article also exists. This article, however, serves no other purpose than to use Wikipedia to push propaganda. Jeppiz (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends. Regardless of international recognition, a country is allowed to declare whatever it wants, and such things are notable. If Russia has declared that an oblast exists over the region that was the Kherson Oblast of Ukraine, then we need an article on that new oblast. However, I'm not 100% sure if that's the case. The sources are in Russian, so I beg forgiveness, but do we have any source that says an official oblast named Kherson [etc.] has actually been formed? If not, then this article is indeed premature and just a fork of the occupation article. If it has, then please link that. I see sources about the annexation, but none about the establishment of a new oblast. The two are different concepts, and the former is not sufficient enough for a new article. --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but the Russian-installed authorities have official websites: https://khogov.ru/ for Kherson and https://zapgov.ru/ for Zaporizhia. They are a continuation of the military authorities established after the invasion, but they refer to the two regions as "oblasts" in Russia. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After seeing the article actually say, "The region's borders are not defined", then I must vote Delete. The article has hamstrung its own reason for existence. --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious POV fork. Now, the comparison with Lugansk People's Republic is completely off the mark: Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reflects secondary sources. We don't create reality, we passively reflect reliable sources. LNR/DNR have been widely treated in RS, so that's why we have these entries. Right now there is no room at all for separate entries on new entities that Russia claims to have created and annexed. The topic should still be "Territories occupied by the Russian Federation", that is, we have Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast because this is the legitimate topic. Right now an article with the title proposed is a clear POV attempt to hastily legitimize/push Russian leadership's POV.Knižnik (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an obvious Russian governmental propaganda fork. Literally nobody recognizes the annexation. If Russia successfully holds Kherson, then Kherson Oblast should simply be updated with that fact. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From now on Kherson is a new federal subject of the Russian Federation. there is a large percentage of territorial control. This new federal subject will have its own codes, telephone prefixes, has its own flag and coat of arms; and Russia, a UN member country, considers it an integral part of its territory. It is true that this new federal subject of Russia is not internationally recognized; but neither is the Republic of Crimea. What should we do? Shall we delete that article too? Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So. What? I gave my dog his own coat of arms. And yeah, probably should merge Republic of Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Unfortunately after 2014 people stopped paying attention to Ukraine related articles and Putinistas ran wild turning everything into "de facto Russia" (sic). That shit needs to stop and lots of it needs to be undone. Volunteer Marek 23:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really saying that a federal subject of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Crimea, whose territory is 100% controlled by Russia, should not have its own article?? Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, it does appear that you are emotionally invested in these articles. However, that doesn't mean that you are correct. "de facto" means according to fact, and the factual situation is that Crimea is administered by the Republic of Crimea, and not the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which exists only as a government in Exile. They are two separate administrations, and as such should have two different articles. The same should apply here. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serafart, first, please kindly keep your opinions about my emotions to yourself. Neither I nor anyone else here cares. And yes I know what "de facto" means. What is bizarre however that this terminology has been universally adopted by all the users/accounts which wish to... let's say "represent the Russian side" in these arguments, especially given that this terminology is completely absent from reliable sources (which just call these territories "occupied by Russia"). Volunteer Marek 23:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no representation of "x sides" on wikipedia. I could give you dozens of examples of Azerbaijan/Karabakh, Georgia/Abkhazia, Cyprus/North Cyprus regarding administrative units. Beshogur (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third reminder of WP:NPA ("represent the Russian side") 89.14.70.34 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a PA, and you need to stick to using a single account (I see you hopped onto this one just today). Volunteer Marek 20:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm annexing Ontario. It's now a part of Ohio. Claims don't make reality. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can do that, and I can do that too. But we are 2 guys, and Russia, on the other hand, is a sovereign state member of the United Nations. And apart from that, Russia does have territorial control. So, it's not just a claim. Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC) blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! I would also like to add that there is very little on that "new" page that isn't covered on Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. Same goes for the page on "Zaporozhye", and the two "people's republics"! SleepTrain456 (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been active in this area for awhile and one thing which is just plain eerie is how ALL of the accounts that support this irredentist Russian nationalist nonsense keep referencing "de jeure vs de facto" status of these territories. The weird thing is that there is virtually *no sources* out there which use this terminology to refer to them (most sources just call these areas "occupied") yet there are a dozen accounts which use the same strange idiosyncratic nomenklature, like it's some official talking point or something. Volunteer Marek 23:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The territories are occupied for a long time. The difference is that it is no longer just a military occupation, now those territories have been formally annexed; Russia considers them part of its territory (until September 29 this was not the case), and considers them federal subjects within the Russian Federation. All federal objects of Russia should have their own article, as well as all states or counties of the United States. Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that too. I thought it was some good faith thing at first (even self-reverting a revert of such), but quickly realized how sus everything was when I saw other similar edits. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 23:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The distinction between de jure and de facto is not strange idiosyncratic nomenclature at all. These terms are very commonly used when discussing disputed claims between countries. And please don't call opposing the deletion of this article "irredentist Russian nationalist nonsense". I oppose Russia's illegal invasion just as much as you do. This is just a disagreement about whether the oblast administrations set up by Russia in the occupied territories should have their own articles. I and others think that they should, based on precedent and other factors, but that does not mean that we somehow support Putin and his invasion. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These terms are very commonly used when discussing disputed claims between countries. If that was actually true then people would have no problem producing sources which actually use these terms. But they can't. Which means it's not true. It's some weird Russian talking point which took off in some corners of social media or something. Volunteer Marek 23:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you try to argue that the term "de facto" is not used for de facto situations in the real world. Looking up the term on google news should have provided you with a plethora of sources using the term to describe regions whose actual control does not correspond with the general legal agreement.
See these articles using the term "de facto" to describe various regions, including these ones:
https://thedispatch.com/p/what-south-ossetia-can-teach-us-about
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/what-russias-failed-coercion-of-transnistria-means-for-the-annexation-of-occupied-territory-in-ukraine
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-forces-in-push-to-join-up-with-moldovan-separatists-jdtr6vcql
https://www.rferl.org/a/south-ossetia-joining-russia/31779469.html
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-is-crimea-different-from-scotland-or-kosovo/25296187.html
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/russia-ukraine-illegitimate-results-of-sham-referenda-must-not-enable-illegal-annexation-of-occupied-areas/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/russia-ukraine-war-latest-what-we-know-on-day-218-of-the-invasion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/19/russia-annexation-ukraine-john-kirby/ Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Omg, you literally just gave me a bunch of sources which are NOT ABOUT UKRAINE. Then the few that are, let's see, the rferl source is talking about Crimea being "de facto independent" not "de facto Russia". The Amnesty source (ugh) is talking about "de facto authorities" not, again, "de facto Russia". It's like you googled "de facto + Russia" and and didn't even read your own sources. Volunteer Marek 23:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about precedence for all similar situations. If you read the guardian article that I linked, you would also see that it uses de facto for these specific regions. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few others which use the terms de facto or de jure in the context of Russia's occupation and annexation. These are not pro-Russian sources by any definition:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/28/zelenskiy-vows-to-defend-ukrainians-in-occupied-regions-as-referendum-results-announced
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/28/fake-referendums-in-ukraine-pave-the-way-for-annexation-and-escalation.html
https://www.rferl.org/a/explosions-russia-authorities-kherson-luhansk/32036899.html
And regarding the general use of these terms in international politics, Zelenskyy today said that Ukraine is a de facto participant in NATO and is seeking to become a de jure:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/30/zelenzkyy-ukraine-nato-putin-annexations-00059782
“We trust each other, we help each other and we protect each other. This is what the alliance is. De facto. Today, Ukraine is applying to make it de jure,” Zelenskyy said. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That politico piece actually perfectly illustrates the point! Zelenskyy says that Ukraine is "de facto" in NATO but not "de jeure". Does this mean that we need to run over to the NATO article and add "Ukraine (de facto)" to the membership list? Of course not! Same thing here. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a similar situation at all. Does NATO act as though Ukraine were a member? No, it doesn't. They don't take part in NATO votes or anything or the sort. However, does Russia act as though these regions are now a part of Russia? Yes, they do, and they administer them as such. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Does Ukraine act as though these regions were part of Russia? No, it doesn't. Just ask all the Russian soldiers that just fled from Lyman (those that could anyway). So yeah, it's similar. Volunteer Marek 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make much sense at all. It doesn't matter what Ukraine thinks in this situation, because Ukraine isn't claiming that Kherson is a part of the Russian federation. Russia is claiming that, and they have established a government to substantiate their claims. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are few if any English language RS's that really describe Kherson Oblast as a federal subject of the Russian Federation. What some gentlemen have been trying to do tonight is creating fait accomplits here. This is not OK. Knižnik (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these articles correspond to federal subjects of the Russian federation, which wile they claim the same territory as their Ukrainian counterparts, are not the same legal entities. As to opposition to the term "de facto" on claims that reliable sources do not back it up, I find those rather laughable, as many sources use the term "de facto" to describe various regions, including these regions:
https://thedispatch.com/p/what-south-ossetia-can-teach-us-about
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/what-russias-failed-coercion-of-transnistria-means-for-the-annexation-of-occupied-territory-in-ukraine
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-forces-in-push-to-join-up-with-moldovan-separatists-jdtr6vcql
https://www.rferl.org/a/south-ossetia-joining-russia/31779469.html
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-is-crimea-different-from-scotland-or-kosovo/25296187.html
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/russia-ukraine-illegitimate-results-of-sham-referenda-must-not-enable-illegal-annexation-of-occupied-areas/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/russia-ukraine-war-latest-what-we-know-on-day-218-of-the-invasion (mentions newly annexed regions)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/19/russia-annexation-ukraine-john-kirby/
additionally, even if not used, terms such as "unrecognized" or "partially recognized" (if recognized by other states) could and probably should be used if a consensus develops against "de facto" despite it's use in sources. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, sources such as National Geographic. while not necessarily a news organization, have recognized places such as crimea as de facto Russian: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/29/russia-accuses-google-maps-of-topographical-cretinism/
Some other sources describing Crimea as de facto Russian:
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/28/6075377/nato-is-using-this-map-to-troll-russia-on-twitter
https://thehill.com/policy/international/205673-putin-pays-visit-to-crimea/ Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources for this use for these newly annexed regions:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/even-putin-knows-he-is-losing
https://fpif.org/is-putin-in-a-corner/ <- this source uses de facto to describe the situation even before their annexation. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world do sources about South Ossetia or Transnitria have to do with anything here? These sources do NOT actually use the term in this way. Volunteer Marek 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we gonna talking about Western politics, remember, Wikipedia is just a detail, and it's not afflicted of any propagandas including Western propagandas. - Jjpachano (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (my opinion is stated above). After reading almost all the arguments, and in particular the arguments for deletion, I came to the conclusion that there is no discussion on Wikipedia as such. But there are political accusations (for example, like here, ME in nationalism and propaganda), demagoguery and emotionality.
I REPEAT FOR THE TRILLION TIME: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE OCCUPATION (there is already an article about the occupation), NOT ABOUT THE SUBJECT REGULATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE (there is already an article about it), NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE OCCUPATIONAL MILITARY-CIVIL ADMINISTRATION (there is no article about this, but there is , for example, in the Russian Wikipedia), NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY AND LEGALITY OF THE ACCESSION OF KHERSON AND OTHER REGIONS TO RUSSIA, and so on.
THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
Do you think that this subject is illegitimate? I agree with you, but this does not stop him from being a legal entity of Russia.
Please, in case of deleting four articles about the SUBJECTS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, also delete the article about the Republic of Crimea and replace it with an article about the Russian occupation of Crimea. Also delete an article like Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (rename to Serbian occupation of Kosovo). Also remove Northern Cyprus (rename to Turkish occupation of Cyprus).
I could say a lot more, but seeing how nothing was answered to my argument, these will be empty words.
Your dear RUSSIAN NATIONALIST - VICTIM OF PUTIN'S PROPAGANDA. PLATEL (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down and stop S H O U T I N G. I also found this interesting guideline: WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Federation Council hasn't even formally accepted these 4 new subjects of the Russian Federation! Even according to Russian law (more like lawlessness) these subjects don't exist yet. Knižnik (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The presidential decree on the accession of the Kherson Oblast to Russia was signed personally by the president and the "head" of the region, Saldo, and needs only ratification, which will take place in the near future. This is not even a crystal ball, this is an official scheduled event, like the future elections in the countries. This is not a reason to delete the page. PLATEL (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and with that post you basically admitted that my point (CRYSTALBALL) was valid: Putin has signed a decree, but the rubber stamp parliament hasn't voted yet. Even from the Russian Federation's POV the decision to start separate articles was premature. Secondly, none of you ever addressed the fact that there simply aren't ANY English language RS that would treat the oblasts as de facto Russian federal subjects. For the umpteenth time, North Cyprus and Taiwan have been there for decades, of course we have Wikipedia entries. Why I'm advocating a deletion of your stubs is only based on our policies, not on any political views.Knižnik (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to comment here as this is not what the policy says; "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable (...) Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. " By RS this annexation has already occured on Friday, (1, 2, 3 ,4), the rubber stamping of said decision is by no means speculation but a reality and would not be covered under CRYSTALBALL. Tweedle (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The military-civil administration is covered as part of the subject of Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. If it needs a separate article, then a split request is in order, not a content fork.
Isn’t that administration about to be designated a Russian federal subject by Russia? Requires an update and maybe renaming, not a content fork. —Michael Z. 21:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This pattern of trying to use wikidata references to give an appearance of authority to partisan claims looks familiar. Again, this is a fork article pushing a single point of view, and should be deleted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Kherson Oblast (Russian: Херсонская область, romanized: Khersonskaya oblast'), also known as Khersonshchina (Russian and Ukrainian: Херсо́нщина) is a federal subject of the Russian Federation (an oblast) although this status is disputed between the Russian Federation and Ukraine and most of the international community, recognise Kherson Oblast as Ukrainian Sovereign Territory which is illegally occupied by the Russia.". The fact that the Kherson region is indicated as a subject of Russia is not a pro-Russian point of view (it would be before September 30). At the very beginning of the article, international condemnation of annexation is demonstrated. If people came into this discussion, even if they read the beginning of the article, and not just its title, it would remove half the opinions for deletion. Why is the article "Republic of Crimea" not considered a POV fork, but Kherson Oblast (Russia) is, although both articles are written in the most neutral way? PLATEL (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's clearly representative of a different POV (the occupation and the de facto Russian political entity being separate things that can have fair NPOV articles), but I do agree that those articles could be merged for now. Switched from 'Keep' to 'Neutral'. JackWilfred (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see reliable sources that establish the existence of Kherson as a Russian Oblast as a truly distinct entity. Instead, the reliable sources (at least the English-language ones; I can't read the Russian-language ones, though I argue that Russian government-controlled sources would not count as independent sources that support notability) establish its existence as essentially a propaganda tool as part of the Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. So merge any distinct content and keep one or the other. My strong vote would be to keep "Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast"; we can always move that later if and when reliable sources establish that the Russian Kherson Oblast is truly established as an independent entity.
(Note that there are lots of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about Taiwan and Crimea. Other stuff exists arguments are never compelling on their own, but in those cases there are clear sources that establish the two as independent entities. Especially as the situation is rapidly evolving, I think readers are better served by one article on Kherson Oblast and maybe one on the occupation rather than splitting content into yet another article discussing a legal entity that I don't see reliable sources discussing beyond the statements that its purported existence is roundly and universally condemned by the international community.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially an Occupation and Oblast one could be merged but it should still have the title of Kherson Oblast (Russia). Wikipedia must be neutral and can't solely rely on English-language sources. Dashing24 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a Russian oblast is very much not neutral; it is explicitly Russian propaganda, according to the reliable sources. As I said, it's not the fact that the sources are Russian language that is the problem. I am going only on the sources I can read, but I don't see anything in the sources I can read that establish the notability of the Russian oblast, distinct from the occupation. And it is an occupation that the reliable sources call it, not an oblast, so I think occupation is the correct title (but I also think that matters very, very little: Kherson Oblast (Russia) should redirect to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast or vice versa). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[2] here the reliable source Meduza calls the Kherson Oblast the Kherson Oblast, and not the Russian occupation of the Kherson Oblast (with the correct caveat that the head of this region was appointed by Russia contrary to the constitution of Ukraine and, in principle, to the world community). Meduza is indeed not the only Russian-language reliable source, and I would be grateful if even more examples of neutral sources would be given to confirm my words. [3] In this source, the Kherson Oblast is called the "occupation administration of the Kherson Oblast." Which refers not to the military occupation, but to the occupation administration. I recently suggested that the articles on military occupations and their administrations be severed here. I suggested not from scratch and not because of the influence of Russian propaganda, but because it is correct to separate governments, territories and occupations. I can cite many articles as an example where there is this division. [4] This source says that "...Immediately after the annexation by Russia of the Zaporozhye and Kherson Oblasts of Ukraine...", which, as it were, confirms that we are talking about the Oblast, and not about military occupation. PLATEL (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OH god, come on. These sources are referring to the Kherson and Zaporozhia Oblasts of Ukraine. This article is about the fake "oblasts" of Russia. Nice try at a switcheroo though. Volunteer Marek 20:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem extremely fixated on exposing such things as "fake" such as these Oblasts being entities which exist as Federal Subjects of Russia, or the DPR and LPR, or Russian control over Crimea. But that doesn't matter. They exist and they have sources which can attest to their existence. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS seems to in part what you are trying to accomplish here, rather than making an actual argument based off of policy for these articles to not exist. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of discussion. I don't understand why in the English Wikipedia there is such an element of Russian propaganda as the Republic of Crimea? Please start a vote to remove this piece of Russian propaganda. PLATEL (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources cited in the Republic of Crimea article that establish the notability of the Republic as a separate entity and discuss its government and related things. Maybe there will be in Kherson, but maybe not. Either way, there's no rush to establish the separate entity on day 1 before there are sources that support the separate article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This means that it is quite possible not to delete these four articles, but, for example, to make it a stub about a region of Russia, controlled by an administration that controls most of the declared territory, and is in the process of de jure formalization in the Russian Constitution. PLATEL (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE /I don't see reliable sources that establish the existence of Kherson as a Russian Oblast as a truly distinct entity./ - Did you try at https://khogov.ru/ https://tass.ru/ ? 89.14.70.34 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are remotely independent. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using multiple accounts to comment here 89.14. Volunteer Marek 20:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is indeed a separate administrative identity. It's de facto official. There is also the possibility that the territory would remain under Russian rule for years to come just as Crimea, so it would be a bit strange not to have an article of such Oblast. Wikipedia already has lots of articles of very short-lived territories and states throughout history, and that's even assuming if this Russian oblast would be short-lived to begin with. --WR 21:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an "administrative entity". It hasn't been created yet. They can't even agree what the borders are.
Is Generalbezirk Weissruthenien a pro-Nazi fork of the article German occupation of Byelorussia during World War II? English Wikipedia expresses the interests of the Nazis and neo-Nazis? PLATEL (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A pathetic straw man. Illegal/unrecognized entities really deserve their own articles. In case there are sources treating them as a topic of their own. This is not the case with your concoctions which have 0% additional information to the real articles that have been created months ago.Knižnik (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yay, a series of AfDs on a currently developing military situation! The results of this will be invalid in about a week, but let's not focus on that, and instead let's have a forum where amateur military adminstrators alternately call each other "Russian nationalists" and "Western propagandists"! What joy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Best comment so far Tweedle (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These two "precedents" exist because there's plethora of RS's for either of these. "Kherson Oblast in the Russian Federation" does not exist as a topic of its own right yet. I suggest we stop exercises in faits accomplits.Knižnik (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such oblast. There is a "treaty" which says such an oblast will be created. As of right now no such oblast exists. This whole thing is one big piece of original research. Volunteer Marek 11:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the Taiwan example 73.170.116.64 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia already includes pages for all sorts of legal entities, like the Spanish Republican government in exile and the previously-mentioned Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, regardless of whether they have widespread recognition. This page, like that of the other Russian puppet entities in occupied Ukraine, is the best place to put information about how Russia is administering the parts of Kherson Oblast which they hold, now that they have (illegitimately) formally annexed those regions (which is why the article on the "military-civilian administration" is separate). Spacemarine10 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an article for an entity all over the news, so quite notable with or without international recognition. extra999 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a lot of people (largely but not exclusively new accounts) vote keep by comparing to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, can I point out that there are several important differences rendering that claim moot. First, Taiwan is not recognized as an indepedent country and does not itself claim to be separate from China. Ukraine is an independent country, separate from Russia. Second, the tone of voice is markedly different, with the article on the claimed Chinese province making it clear from the first sentence that this is a claim, while the articles on the claimed Russian oblasts are based on the structure of existing Russian oblasts, hence masquerading as legitimate oblasts. This format is in stark contrast to all reliable sources. In short, most keep votes appear to be based on arguments that simply don't apply here. Jeppiz (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article about Russian occupation, recreate later. There is an unusually heated discussion about the regions. I think nobody here argues that the land grab was in any way fair or legitimate. We should, however, distinguish different situations that are invoked as precedent.
    • Taiwan vs. Taiwan Province, PRC isn't as much a matter of separatism but of legitimacy of two Chinese governments, one of which arose victorious in the civil war and the other (the Taiwanese one) was defeated. The Taiwan province article is needed to show mainland Chinese non-recognition of the other govt, and what would happen to Taiwan if China was to overtake the area.
    • Autonomous Republic of Crimea vs Republic of Crimea, as well as DPR and LPR vs Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast, West Sahara/Southern Provinces, Kosovo/Autonomous Republic of Kosovo and Metokhia - the subjects are all notable because they were exercising their control over their respective areas for a sufficient amount of time so we can describe each of these independent of the other (i.e. there are sources that describe how de facto control was happening in the area.
Is this the case with newly annexed entities? I don't think so. I agree that they might become notable when coverage of the administration is there, but there isn't any because independence was claimed on 29th Sep and annexation happened on the 30th, so that's a case of WP:TOOSOON. The treaty was formally not ratified by the Federation Council, and though we are sure it will do that, officially it hasn't happened yet.
For now, keep it as a redirect, but when sufficient information exists, we can recreate it. Symbols are not enough, and we can create an info box in the occupation article.
Also, wtf is happening to short descriptions? Republic of Crimea says it is a "first-level administrative division of Russia, annexed territory of Ukraine", which is OK. Why is Zaporozhye/Kherson Oblast "Oblast of southern Russia"? I mean, it's not like Moscow Oblast, is it? Stop copying the general Russian entity template for these articles and quit with that pro-annexation bullshit, whoever adds it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the subjects are all notable because they were exercising their control over their respective areas for a sufficient amount of time"- How long does an entity need to be into existence for it to warrant an article on its own? The DNR article was created the day it was declared into existence. Tweedle (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, but there's no one-size-fits-all answer. WP:GEOLAND, which is controlling for this discussion, says that the notability of disputed regions is "case-by-case". While this normally applies to BLPs only, I'd argue the WP:1EVENT rule to also aid this particular discussion. For now, the only thing that is notable about the new entity is its annexation to Russia, but this is already covered here. Outside of this, there is basically no new event that would establish notability independent of the annexation.
As for DPR article being created at the date of proclamation, let's remember that DPR at the date of creation was Russian-backed+a bit of Russian militia fighting the Ukrainian govt. Basically in that case, we are speaking more of local rebels were rallying for and recruiting soldiers rather than an annexation administration (look up Bougainville and its Republic of the North Solomons). Same for Novorossiya as a confederation of anti-Ukrainian militias. So, we are speaking of different cases. The rebellion was notable at the time, but Kherson Oblast or Zaporozhye as an "independent" country by itself is not, nor are by themselves these regions as Russian federal subjects (yet). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A point of clarification: Russia has formally completed its process of annexation, and, by extension, the amendment of the constitution, but my point stands. There is no notability to be established outside the annexation. That said, I believe that the article will clearly have outside notability once the government starts doing its normal business and when it is covered in RS. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely discussed in many sources"? Really? which sources? Name me at least some. The Russian occupation is widely discussed in sources, hence we have this article: Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. A discussion of to-be-created entities does not exist yet. Szmenderowiecki made valid points: once these entities have acquired certain notability (let's say, like Russian-annexed Crimea), then relevant articles can be created.Knižnik (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I would point to the recent sources that have come out over the last few days as proof thus us not something someone on Wikipedia is just making up. I would also note that this article deals with the political entity that now exists under Russia's claim, regardless of its breaking of international law, and not the Ukrainian oblast or the military occupation, which are of course all detailed in separate articles. Also, if the Luhansk and Donetsk republics are now historical entities, that means they have been annexed as subjects of Russia, so why wouldn't these two oblasts have the same treatment?Yeoutie (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a claimed or legal region of Russia. No such oblast exists. There isn't a single source in the article which actually documents its existence, even putting aside the legality question. This is something a Wikipedia user invented. Volunteer Marek 11:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please be precise:
Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) is being considered for deletion;
You link two 'republics' allegedly annexed, the articles are historical
Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article repeating other information or otherwise being a stub isn't really proper rationale to delete the article though. An official top-level administrative division of a country should be considered inherently notable in itself, even without additional information or even non-trivial coverage, and there is precedent for this. As an example, every census designated place in the United States, the vast majority of which have no non-trivial coverage from multiple sources and no real information that isn't already stated elsewhere, has its own article, and they aren't even proper administrative divisions. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really apply when the other stuff existing has been discussed, and resulted in such things being regarded as inherently notable by the community. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the notability standard of geographical places, see WP:GEOLAND. Disputed places are not inherently notable, including not by other events or connections to prior administrative units. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every federal subject of Russia must have specified borders. However, Russian government say they do not knw it [5]
The Kremlin is still determining which areas of occupied Ukraine it has “annexed”, Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson has said, suggesting Russia does not know where its self-declared international borders are.
My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and other respective articles. Just as the "Military-Civilian Administrations" in Kharkiv, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mykolayiv Oblasts are not separated from the articles on the basis of fulfilling the same purpose, so, too, does it fulfil the same purpose as this article; both this and the Russian occupation of Khersonshchyna detail parts of the latter. I agree with the position of @Szmenderowiecki in that if, in the future, the occupational administrations of the oblasts are worth differentiating from the articles about the occupation, they should be separated into their own articles.
Mupper-san (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's frankly "dumbest" is voting for this article to be kept when no such oblasts actually exist! Show me a single source in these article which says "such and such oblast is established", or even "such and such an oblast is going to be established". This is all invented. The Russians just said they're annexing these territories (and we already have an article for that Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine) but they haven't even established what the exact borders of the annexed territories are, much less how they will be organized politically! Volunteer Marek 11:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek Ok I’ll be honest your valid point that the oblast doesn’t exist (though the official website seems to imply it does exist de facto) was lost in your very aggressive conduct. I believed the actual best practice now is to administer a chill pill to those involved in this discussion, Marek and Platel especially MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will concur that it might be too soon for the article on account of a lack of sourcing though, I believe that this should resolve soon however. It’ll definitely be notable in the future though MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changing your mind. It's genuinely appreciated. As for the "chill pill" the problem is that some dedicated accounts insist on restoring unsourced and false information and are now trying to spread it to other articles. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. Who the hell knows what will happen in the future? Russian defensive lines are collapsing along multiple fronts so who knows how this will play out. Volunteer Marek 11:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thing is, I don't think these "administrative divisions" even actually exist. They may at some point but right not all that's happened is that Putin signed a piece of paper that says "we will annex Kherson and Zaporozhia". AFAICT there are no "oblasts" created. They haven't even decided what the borders of these things are supposed to be [6]! This whole thing is a stupid Wikipedia invention! The defenders of these articles are more irredentist than Putin himself. All ohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kherson_Oblast_(Russia)f this is just really really emberassing original research. Volunteer Marek 11:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any region/administrative division must have a specified territory. Russian government openly says they do not know what territory they are talking apout [7]. That's why I voted "delete". My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, that's a fair point and I'd like to see countearguments; if not, I'd be fine with redirecting this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the law (which is total BS, but still) here is fairly clear. Article 3 says that "the limits of the territory of Kherson Oblast are defined by the territory of Kherson Oblast at the time of joining the Russian Federation and the creation of the federal subject within the Russian Federation". The deputy governor says that all of Kherson Oblast and a few settlements in Mykolayiv Oblast (like Snihurivka) are under (Russian) Kherson Oblast administration, so it appears that the claimed territories are defined pretty well (Ukrainian Kherson Oblast + whatever parts of Mykolayiv Oblast they controlled militarily as of 30 Sep); those that they control, not so much. In other words, from the perspective of Russian law no one outside Russia or Syria is going to recognise, there are Ukrainian Armed Forces battalions operating on Russian soil without relevant authorisation and which are attacking the Russian Armed Forces. My crystal ball says that's a good pretext to introduce full-scale martial law due to the (artificially and deliberately created) threat to territorial integrity the Ukrainians pose, but maybe mine is broken. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subjects of the federation are listed in the constitution, and this has not been changed yet. As of today, there are no sources to confirm that there is an administrative unit in Russia with such a name (assuming the annexation of these areas to Russia). The media do not create administrative units, and, in this case, "news" are definitely not enough. Aotearoa (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to everyone voting keep. These oblasts don't actually exist. And I don't mean "they exist but are unrecognized". I mean they don't exist. The Russians haven't even decided yet what borders they're supposed to have! Please actually bother looking through the freakin' sources in the article. Not one, not a single source in these articles say that these oblasts have been created. This whole thing is completely invented by a Wikipedia user. Maybe at some future date these will exist. But they don't right now. There's no law or treaty or anything establishing them. This. Is. Made. Up. Please actually bother looking through the sources in the article - NONE of which support the claims made - before casting your POV driven votes. Volunteer Marek 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, JFC, look at the "flags" they stuck into the infobox. Are these official flags? No. Are they even unofficial flags? No. Have flags for these oblasts even been proposed? No, because these "oblasts" don't even exist!. But somebody picked out some flag from ... 1803 and 1869 and decided to make them flags for these imaginary oblasts. This is the kind of original research that you should get indef banned for. Volunteer Marek 11:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(out of discussion about the article)
what do we have here?
ban threats, emotionalism, political bias, an absolute lack of neutrality under the flag of neutrality.
you should stop editing the english wikipedia, better take care of the ukrainian wikipedia.
without you, the project will exist much better.
if you took this as an WP:NPA, then I'm sorry for the WP:NPA. PLATEL (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to deflect from the fact that you created an article entirely full of fake information. No such oblasts exist. I'll give you credit though, you did fool all the people here who voted "keep" but didn't bother to actually look at the sources. Volunteer Marek 12:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
iq 0
1) What do you think is the criterion for existence?
2) Please remove the article about Atlantis. This is a non-existent region.
3) If you consider government decrees and regulations irrelevant, delete the article about mobilization.
4) Above, I threw off Russian-language non-governmental sources, which speak of the de jure annexation of the de facto occupied territories under the names "Kherson Oblast", "Zaporozhye Oblast", "DPR" and "LPR". Today the State Duma officially ratified this. (official duma website) (BBC).
what else to say? HEIL PUTIN? PLATEL (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) An actual law exists which establishes such an oblasts
2) Atlantis isn't an oblast.
3) There is no freakin' government decree or regulation establishing such an oblast, that's the whole freakin point.
4) Yes, there was annexation. We have an article about that. There is NO establishment of any oblast.
Come on, the fact that you INVENTED a freakin' flag for this imaginary oblast kind of gives the whole game away. Volunteer Marek 13:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you will be surprised, but the regions that Russia even illegally annexed to itself become de jure regions of Russia.
I did not invent the flag, but the MCA of the region. The occupation authorities of the region used this flag at the ceremony of signing the accession treaties. Thanks to those who uploaded and vectorized this flag to wikimedia commons.
please leave the English Wikipedia for Ukrainian, you will be grateful.PLATEL (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is from 1803. You made up the fact that it was a flag for a non existent oblast. You repeatedly telling me to "leave English Wikipedia for Ukrainian" is a personal attack if not a threat, and it is yet another reason for why you need to be indef'd. Volunteer Marek 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what am I threatening or attacking? so that, you will be grateful?.
give me a source that this is a flag from 1803. The coat of arms is a tracing paper on the coat of arms of 1803, and the flag is the flag of the Ukrainian Kherson Oblast, but with a different coat of arms. PLATEL (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this is almost at WP:HOAX level but people here are voting "keep" because, I don't know, yeay Russia! or something. Volunteer Marek 12:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Duma law ratifies the annexation, it does not establish any oblasts. Besides, this is from today, you created this HOAX article a couple days ago. Volunteer Marek 13:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is convenient to write off the opponent's position for Russian propaganda. PLATEL (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This. Is. Fake. Info. No. Such. Oblasts. Exist. This has nothing to do with "propaganda". Volunteer Marek 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When Russia occupies regions, they disappear? PLATEL (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"yeay russia" so your saying that Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and Autonomous Republic of Crimea pages should exist or Taiwan even cause if you go the "oh it isnt recognized" route then the taiwan page would also be like that Cyclonicpot (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ffs, no. The problem isn't even that it's "unrecognized". The problem is that no such oblast exist. Putin hasn't established any oblast. There is no oblast to be unrecognized. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. This stuff is just made up. It's like if I started an article on The US State of Puerto Rico. Volunteer Marek 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putin did not established the Kherson Oblast, but annexed it de jure. PLATEL (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense. Give me a single source which says such an oblast exists. Volunteer Marek 13:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to give anything to the toxic person who called to ban me and other people.
The Russian state already considers the oblast to be its region: decrees of the President, the Constitutional Court, ratification by the State Duma and tomorrow's ratification by the Federation Council.
The Russian authorities did not create the oblast, but (illegally) annexed it.
Give me a single source which says such an oblast do not exists.PLATEL (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You created an article full of false information. Yes, you should be indefinetly banned per WP:NOTHERE and WP:HOAX. No, I don't have to give you a source which "says such an oblast do not exists". Enough. Volunteer Marek 13:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a stub article in which it was written that "The Russian-occupied part of Ukrainian Kherson Oblast was annexed on 30 September, along with Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and Zaporizhzhia Oblast." An infobox was also added, where the head of the occupation administration of the region and the coat of arms used by the occupation administration were indicated.
I am not involved in anything else, but I am grateful that other Wikipedians developed this and other articles. And you should be banned forever, at least for inappropriate aggressive behavior. PLATEL (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Bullshit. Here is the article you created [8]. It says "Kherson Oblast (Russian: Херсонская область, romanized: Khersonskaya oblast') is a federal subject of Russia (an oblast). This is 100% fake. It was fake four days ago. It's still fake as of right now. You made it up. You know this can be easily checked, right? Why are you even bothering to BS people? Volunteer Marek 13:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if the region is annexed to Russia, then it becomes a region of Russia.
if a person is killed, then he is dead. PLATEL (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 13:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you reject logic? I do not understand. Russia considers the Kherson Oblast to be its region, Ukraine considers the Kherson Oblast to be its region. They have different symbols (see photo), they have different leaders (Saldo), they even have different territories (part of Mykolaiv Oblast). These are different oblasts but with similar names. PLATEL (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It exists neither de facto nor de jure. Whoever you are. Volunteer Marek 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tass seems to think there are borders Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that source mention any oblasts? No? Then why are you bring it here. At best this is talking about the borders of territory they want to annex. That doesn't make anything an oblast. We already have an article on Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. There. Is. No. Oblasts. Volunteer Marek 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that RM is needed for whenever they stop referring to them as regions, sure. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean precisely what I say. No such oblasts exists. No idea what RM is suppose to be. Volunteer Marek 13:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait until tomorrow.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. When this article was created four days ago, no such oblasts existed. User:PLATEL made it all up, and a bunch of other accounts helped him "keep" this fake info. You can't use what might happen "tomorrow" to create and source article four days prior. Volunteer Marek 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One. More. Time. No. Such. Oblast. Exist. They haven't been created by Russia. And surprise, surpise, a brand new WP:SPA account created a few days ago, with beautiful infoboxes and userboxes on their user page. This whole AfD is turning into a complete circus. Volunteer Marek 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More info on the borders (and says they will continue to be called "regions") Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and even that Russia propaganda source calls these "entities" not "oblasts". No. Such. Oblasts. Exist. They certainly didn't four days ago when the article was created. Volunteer Marek 14:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
exist. article 2 PLATEL (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Translation Article 2 "From the date of admission to the Russian Federation of the Kherson region as part of the Russian Federation, a new subject is formed - the Kherson region."
Other docs here Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article 1: 1. The Kherson region is considered to be admitted to the Russian Federation from the date of signing this Treaty.
the same source says at the end that the treaty was signed on the same day, 30 September. There is a lot of news about the signing of the treaty, perhaps even in international sources. PLATEL (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also. "According to Article 2 of the Treaty under consideration, from the date of the admission of the Kherson Oblast to the Russian Federation, a new subject is formed as part of the Russian Federation - the Kherson Oblast" PLATEL (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also [9] [10] [11] PLATEL (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and my condolences to the closer that will have to wade through the Russian sock farm. This region does not exist, add a paragraph or two to the article of the region that does exist, regarding the sham annexation attempt. ValarianB (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This region de jure exists. PLATEL (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    De jure the region is Ukrainian territory partially occupied by Russia. Which is why we have an article on the Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. nableezy - 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please delete Reichskommissariat Ukraine. This article is a Nazi propaganda fork. Replace it with German occupation of Ukraine PLATEL (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It no more exist than if I stood in a corner of the White House lawn and declared it to be the Greater Principality of ValarianB. You have commented in this discusion more than is healthy, so kindly read WP:BLUDGEON and find something else to do. ValarianB (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not an internationally recognized government sitting on the UN Security Council with veto power. PLATEL (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it? We have plenty of sourcing that a region has joined Russia; we have zero sourcing on what Russia thinks of it. Is it a single oblast? Is it an equal member of the Russian Federation? Did they pass a law describing it as such? If so, then we should be able to source that. From what I've seen, we can't. --Golbez (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i think Kherson Oblast renamed as Kherson Oblast (Ukrain) And Kherson Oblast (Russia) also there And in Kherson Oblast we have multiples options just like you search Punjab you find Multiple Options Punjab india and Punjab Pakistan. Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those arent the same place despite the same name. One is in India, one is in Pakistan. nableezy - 17:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. We don't need two distinct articles on the same physical territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on the reasoning, because if a country declares a particular division over an area that's identical to another one, it's still a distinct division and deserves an article. For example, if France declared that they owned Quebec, in its borders, then we would still need a "Quebec (French department)" or whatever. That said, that doesn't even seem to be the case here, as no sourcing has been given saying that Russia has declared any oblast in any region. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If Russia hasn't declared any oblast, how is it not a POV fork to create an article describing one? If it isn't a fork, it is a hoax... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My disagreement was solely on your saying "we don't need two distinct articles on the same physical territory." We absolutely do if there are two provinces from different countries over the same region. That said, that is not yet proven to be the case here. But if there were sourcing then I would challenge your reasoning. --Golbez (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If were weren't discussing Wikipedia content, where the existence of sources is central to more or less any meaningful discussion, I might consider your challenge worth getting into a debate over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know sources are central. However, that has nothing to do with your challenge, which was purely "we don't need two articles over the same area." We do, if they're called for. This one isn't, yet; others are. You keep trying to bring it back to Kherson when I'm saying the premise of your challenge is flawed. I agree, this should be deleted, but not for the reason you gave. I'd love a debate. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My assertion that the article is a POV fork is based on my assessment of that specific article. When I wrote 'we don't need two articles on the same territory', I was referring to the territory that forms the specific subject of this article. Not some hypothetical abstraction. If you want to debate abstractions, I suggest you find somewhere other than AfD discussions to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going by your reasoning, we'd need to delete Kraków District, Lublin District and District of Galicia. Same for General Government and Reichskommissariat Ukraine, right? — kashmīrī TALK 18:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's making the point you're hoping to. You didn't give any examples of multiple articles covering identical areas. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they is no fixed information about them because of the state of war of both territories and the articles are redundant. Those articles should be deleted and any useful information moved to Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast & Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, later both deleted articles can be redirected there. --Serg!o (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kraków District, Lublin District and District of Galicia also existed only during a war. Should they be deleted? — kashmīrī TALK 18:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify. This article does not contain any information not already covered better by Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Kherson Oblast.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear POV fork that serves no useful purpose. Can be covered in Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Kherson Oblast as mentioned above. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These territories fall under de-facto Russian control and governance, since the Russian government officially annexed and incorporated them into the federation as federal subjects on 30 September 2022. So not under military occupation anymore. These territories are likely to be held under Russian control for decades to come just like Crimea. Stuntneare (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then surely you can find a source saying that Russia has proclaimed an oblast named Kherson over these specific borders? Because no one else has yet. --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit, I am not seeing a source, both Russian and Western, that claims that the Russian government has proclaimed these territories as oblasts or republics. But the point is, they have been annexed as federal subjects. I think the process takes time, and surely they will be proclaimed. Just like Crimea was turned into a republic. They cannot just sit around as "regions". Stuntneare (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they have been annexed. But not as "Kherson Oblast," etc. So we can't make up a name that doesn't exist. Of course they can sit around as regions. Just because they've been annexed doesn't mean they've been integrated. --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I do not think this article is WP:FORK. For example, the article of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China exists. This entity is de facto a federal subject of Russia, but de jure a part of Ukraine (Kherson Oblast), so this "region" is a different political entity from the Ukrainian oblast. So an article explaining the situation on behalf of Russia should definitely exist, as reality cannot be ignored. I could've vouched for merging this article with Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, but the article still states that the region is under "military occupation", but the region is officially a part of the Russian Federation since 30 September, so not under military occupation anymore. As for the name part, I agree. Maybe not as "oblast", but as "region" or maybe just as Kherson, until the government officially categorizes it as one of its constitutional subdivisions? Either this, or the article for the occupation of the oblast should be modified? Stuntneare (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Surely they will be proclaimed"? Reliance on logic like that to argue that the Russian oblast exists is pretty clear evidence that it doesn't. If there are no reliable, third-party sources that establish that the Russian oblast exists, the purported oblast is not notable and the article should be deleted. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Decades to come? On Monday, the Russian military acknowledged that Kyiv’s forces had broken through in the Kherson region. It said the Ukrainian army and its “superior tank units” had managed to “penetrate the depths of our defence” around the villages of Zoltaya Balka and Alexsandrovka. [18] I don't know where you got your crystal ball from, Stuntneare, but I'd send it back. Is it still under warrenty? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These areas do indeed fall within an ongoing warzone. Obviously the borders are going to change here and there. Since these territories are officially annexed by the Russian government and proclaimed as federal subjects, I believe any large attack over these areas will now be officially considered an "attack on Russian territory" by RF, which will lead to further escalation, and possible use of tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil, which will most definitely pave the way for NATO and American intervention. Besides, administrative units are generally notable, no matter how controversial or short-lived they are, e.g. Reichskommissariat Moskowien. Stuntneare (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NOTFORUM. Your personal prognostications of doom are of no relevance to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would be considered an attack on Russian territory. What is being questioned is that there is an official "Kherson oblast" as a member of the Russian Federation, and no sourcing has been given for that. Simple. Give me a source that says the Russian government has admitted a new oblast by this name, or this should be deleted. It has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the annexation, if anyone is making up shit (seriously, the absolute bullshit that is being flung around this AFD, "what if i name france after myself does it get an article" no, you dunces. you're arguing in bad faith and I will call you out on it.) or anything other than: Is. There. A. Source. That. Says. The. Russian. Government. Has. Created. An. Oblast. With. This. Name. In. These. Borders. Period. NOT DIFFICULT. All other arguments are utterly meaningless and just serve to make people get off to the sound of their own voice. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two major issues: Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast already exists (for some reason it's been edited to suggest the occupation is over because it was annexed, which I find incoherent), so this is a WP:POVFORK, and nobody has found a source for there being a Russian "Kherson Oblast" so it's also a WP:HOAX. Tartan357 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd be surprised to know the Russian occupation of Ukrainian Kherson Oblast documents... the Russian occupation of Ukrainian Kherson Blast, while the Russian Kherson Oblast article documents the administrative division of Russia. You say there is no source for a Russian Kherson Oblast yet the Russian puppet government dubs its VK account Kherson Oblast Administration (its short URL also says so: khersonoblast_adm). The official Kherson Oblast, Russian website calls it "Херсонской области" (Khersonskoi oblastyi, in my humble transliteration). So yes, there is a Russian Kherson Oblast, like it or not (I don't like it at all if you ask me). Bedivere (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care what the puppet government says, I care what Moscow says, and no one has shown the federal government saying anything on this. But, meh. I'm tired. This is tiring. How do you people put up with this nonsense, day in, day out, years on end? --Golbez (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On another note the Russian puppet government pretends it is the "continuation" of the Soviet oblast established in 1944. There was a USSR Kherson oblast, fwiw. [19]
    Same goes for the Zaporizhia Oblast, which the Russian puppet administration calls "Запорожской области" (Zaporoyskoy oblasti). This one isn't (doesn't pretend to be, at least) a "continuation" of a USSR oblast, though. [20] Bedivere (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An article about an administrative division, or province, or oblast, is not about an abstract notion that exists only on paper but about a physical place, soil, populated by actual people. The physical place and the people resident in it already have an article, Kherson Oblast, and there is nothing to justify the creation of a duplicate article, like this one, to POVFORK its allegiance or governance. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree. There is undoubtedly an administrative de jure division which exists both in Russia and in Ukraine. It's not our duty to judge their legitimacy. Bedivere (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How one opts to judge their legitimacy is not relevant in any way. Nothing in the comment you replied to suggests doing so. The Russian Kherson is the Ukrainian Kherson. They are the same space. We do not duplicate articles as POVFORKs, as in this case, so that they can be dressed up as something else. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know we could argue the same about many historical division articles which are "the same space" as current divisions. Bedivere (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrative divisions are internal to the state. Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir and Kashmir conflict all relate to the same area. Yet Azad Kashmir is an administrative region of Pakistan with its own laws, government and language; Jammu and Kashmir is the same claimed region but within the structures of Indian administration; while the Kashmir conflict applies to - yes, you've guessed, an armed conflict. By the way, neither Pakistani nor Indian claims are accepted as permanent by the UN.
    Conflating all the three Kashmir articles would be a misunderstanding. So why are you proposing the same here? — kashmīrī TALK 00:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've proposed nothing of the sort, and your exercising an apparently endless capacity for transparent and facile straw man arguments on this page does not advance your position. Control of the areas in the Kashmir dispute is widely recognised diplomatically, with significant diplomatic support on various sides. In this case practically the entire world, and the UN, sees it as an illegal occupation. Territorial disputes are not a matter of domestic law, they are governed by international law. So Russian "legal" proclamations do not establish a new entity on the territory of a foreign state. This article takes a dubious primary source and the servile Russian media which stenographered it, and repeats it as fact. That's a WP:POVFORK of the existing article. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems pretty obvious from everything above that this is a POV fork that is being supported by primarily a bunch of SPAs making claims that clearly represent a bias toward the Russian government. There isn't actually an administrative zone or governance in this region over this territory, which is the main issue with this article existing. Governments can make claims of territory however they want, but unless and until they have actual involvement in said territory, those claims should be represented in brief in the primary top level article on the region. Not in a POV fork of an article attempting to create legitimacy to said government's claims. SilverserenC 23:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "actual involvement in said territory"? Wow, wow, wow, a new notability criteria in the making. Have you checked the many articles about contested regions listed on this page? Just scroll up. In all these cases, usually only one party has an "actual involvement in the said territory" and the other has only claims. Yet, we strive to represent both views. Not even mentioning that in the case of Kherson region, Russia is exerting actual control over much of the contested territory. — kashmīrī TALK 00:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have and they are either fulfilling exactly what I'm referring to, such as Crimea having an actual administrative government connected to Russia, or are poorly titled for what they represent, such as the Taiwan Province article, which I think should be re-named. The latter is also just a pretty terribly constructed and laid out article anyways and I question its relevance and legitimacy as being separate from the general Politics of the Republic of China article. In fact, I think some additional AfDs and/or merge discussions are needed, because there is some blatant POV forking going on by having Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, Taiwan, China, and Free area of the Republic of China as separate articles. The lack of proper content organization in them and vague overall purpose exemplifies the issue. SilverserenC 00:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IMO, these articles are not POV forks, a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL or represent stuff that doesn't exist. These oblasts do exist, they have governments and land (even though the Russian leadership appears unsure exactly where the borders are supposed to be due to the rapid advance of the Ukrainian counteroffensives). To keep these articles is also not a POV statement. We have articles on other illegally annexed / civilian-military administrative areas as well, such as the Nazi German Reichsgau territories in WW2. As others pointed out above, there is also a distinction between the topics of the articles relating to the Russian occupation and the articles about the administrative areas. Applodion (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "they do exist, but no one can tell us where they are or what their name is" is not the most compelling argument. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Golbez: Historically speaking, "no one can tell us where they are or what their name is" has been the most common situation for state-like entities and administrations. When the United States were founded, no one knew where their western borders were either. In most ancient, medieval, and early modern states clearly defined borders were rather uncommon. Applodion (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still nobody knows where the borders, e.g., between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are. Or the borders between Israel and Palestine. Fortunately, nobody proposed to exclude either country from Wikipedia because of that. — kashmīrī TALK 18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did that strawman take effort, or is it just an innate skill of yours? If Wikipedia was around when the United States annexed Hawaii, we would have been incorrect to have an article titled "Hawaii Territory" because it had not been created yet. It is possible to be part of a country and not one of its units yet. We are in that situation here, at least as far as we can tell, because despite being given more than enough time you people haven't been able to supply a single source saying that the federal government of Russia has added a new unit. Show me an article that says that Russia has created/admitted a Kherson oblast and this all ends. Til then, you're crystal balling. If you don't understand this then I guess we're done here. I'd've thought someone who's been here so long would understand how words work instead of repeating same bullshit arguments. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The specific borders don't even matter, because we don't even have a source saying there is a "Kherson oblast" in Russia as an equal member of the federation. People have tried to say "the locals have a website" as if that means anything. The fact that you can't answer this question because no one knows means everything to this AFD. Give us a link saying that the federal government has admitted/created a new oblast and this is all over. Til then, no article for you. --18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Golbez (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now it's official. The constitutional amendments are in force. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose or Support the renaming It's clearly specified in the title that it's of the terrorist's control. Same goes for the Kherson military-civilian administration. Same goes for all the other Oblasts. Dawsongfg (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok try again but this time make sense. --Golbez (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what the heck is wrong with that Dawsongfg (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. We already have Kherson Oblast, Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, and Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. That's plenty. This one has a POV title, which doesn't help. I am confused whether this is one discussion for both Kherson and Zaporozhye, or if there is a seperate Zaporozhye discussion somewhere. I think both should be deleted. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The two so called regions are bundled here, then Luhansk and Donetsk are AfD separately. Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fork. The arguments of some in this discussion about notability and such are misplaced, as this is not the basis for the nomination. The real issue here is an editorial one as to how to manage the information regarding the territories. We need to have NPOV information regarding their status, allowing for documentation of the Russian claims and the rejection of those claims by most of the world. We should not require our volunteer editors to divide their attention among multiple articles when the information can be effectively and concisely contained in the existing article. We can already see there is an appetite to get ahead of what the NPOV sourcing supports; we know from experience that forking makes this worse. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep offensive as it is, it is a thing exists, or at least a thing that a nationstate claims exists. This is article about the adminstrative division as claimed and put into existence by Russia. As Wikipedia shows in plenty of previous cases we have independent articles about the internal structures of countries, irregardless to territorial control, conflicting claims, or even reality. It's not our place to argue right, wrong, control, borders, or for how long. Wikipedia documents. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Under this argument, we would be required to also create a new article titled "Kherson Oblast (independent state)", referring to the status that Kherson Oblast held on September 29, 2022, when it briefly existed as an (allegedly) independent state with Russian recognition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, this might as well be one of the biggest discussions on Wikipedia even though it probably isn't. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Flag of Kherson Oblast (Russia) was created while this AfD has been proceeding, and has been nominated for deletion. Tartan357 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does not. It says Kherson Oblast is an entity which Russia considers to be one of its federal subjects, an oblast... (read my comment above). My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One is about the actual occupation, another is fiction on paper that does not deserve a page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say tomato...:) Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judea and Samaria Area <- fiction on paper that still has an article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have to create a separate page about every fantasy claim by Russian government. We should simply mention such claims on other relevant pages, such as Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. If it really existed as a federel subject of Russia with defined borders, then it would be different. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference between us is that you see the physical reality more whereas I see it as merely a legal construct. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The example with Judea and Samaria Area only proves my point: it has defined borders and it is "internationally recognized" as our page says.My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my previous comment, it says the area is internationally recognized not the administrative district itself, which isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Judea and Samaria Area is an internationally recognized area with stable and defined borders, but "Kherson Oblast (Russia)" is a "district" of Russia on paper with no stable and no defined borders. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See here. The claimed borders are defined. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not, at least according to Peskov, an official representative of Russian government [28] (this is CNN today). In addition, #2 (that must be de facto a part of Russia) remains. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judea and Samaria Area is an internationally recognized area with stable and defined borders Nope. JS Area is merely a legal entity. Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claimed borders are defined Yes, that's it, key word "claimed". Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is true that Russia does not control the entire region, but we should follows the facts on the ground, which is that the region exists, even if only on documents.--Sakiv (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sakiv, this is contradictory. The lack of control is "the facts on the ground", and an "existence" in documents, whatever that may mean, is thus directly at odds with "facts on the ground". Drmies (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although it does not control territory, there is an article for the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. There are many other examples. There is no contradiction. Here Russia captured a large part of the land. The problem with this article is finding the sources. Sakiv (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apples and oranges. It does control territory, of course, at least partially, whereas China controls no territory in Taiwan, but that's another matter. Yes, there is a contradiction, because you cannot claim the "existence" of the region on documents if there is no real-life control. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Drmies, first, all countries have rights and duties, and Russia, when it claims the existence of the Kherson Oblast, has its reasons, and one of the reasons is its control over a significant part of the region. Secondly, the absence of recognition of the Russian annexation does not mean a unanimous international rejection of it. On the contrary, there is no contradiction in my words, and I only expressed my support for such articles when there is absence of any authority controlling a region and at the same time there is an administration that claims to exercise authority over it, such as the Taiwan Administration of the PRC or Abkhazia of the Tbilisi government. Sakiv (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          @Sakiv - Russia doesn't need to designate Kherson as a province (oblast) of Russia. Russia could have just as easily held indefinite control of Kherson as an occupied territory, which it had been doing for seven months prior to officially annexing the territory. The previous Russian occupation of Kherson was described as the "Kherson military–civilian administration". | In another example, Israel has been occupying the Palestinian Territories for decades, but it has only officially annexed East Jerusalem (also the Golan Heights, annexed from Syria). Israel describes the West Bank as the "Judea and Samaria Area", but Israel has not officially annexed this territory yet. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Certain political entities that are "divided" (e.g. Kashmir, Fujian, Jerusalem, and Nicosia) have multiple articles, but the distinction is that most of these are the continuations of relatively old status quos. The Russian-Ukrainian division over regions like Kherson Ob. and Zaporizhzhia Ob. is relatively new, and it is also probably not even going to be permanent. Russia officially annexed these territories, which it had occupied for months, in order to cement its claim to the region. However, that doesn't change the facts on the ground. On the ground, Russia has been losing control of pieces of their newly-annexed territories here and there. Just within the past few days, Russia has lost significant chunks of Kherson Ob. and Donetsk Ob. on the battlefield. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For a reference point, Russia instated an "independent Republic of Crimea" and "independent Kherson Oblast + independent Zaporizhzhia Oblast" during the process by which these regions "seceded" from Ukraine and acceded to Russia. The independent Crimean Republic last for only around four days, whereas the independent Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts lasted for only one day. We don't have distinctive Wikipedia articles about these three independent republics because they simply didn't last long enough to be of any meaningful significance, even though they technically were recognised as fully sovereign independent nations by Russia during their brief existences. Theoretically, if were going to be absolutely stringent, we would be required to create independent articles for these three short-lived "independent" sovereign states. However, that would be an obvious content-fork, not to mention a general POV issue. And, at the same time, this logic can be applied to the current status of the "Kherson Oblast (Russia)" article and its brethren. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For all intents and purposes, I regard Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia as "divided" regions, much like Kashmir, Fujian, Jerusalem, and Nicosia, because both Russia and Ukraine claim + control territories that possess the exact same names (bar spelling differences) and personalities. Russia does not claim that "Kherson Ob., Russia" is a separate polity from Ukraine's "Kherson Ob., Ukraine", and likewise vice versa. Russia is effectively claiming absolute authority over the pre-existing Ukrainian entity, and hence we are not dealing with two wholly separate entities here but rather one single entity that is divided between two governments. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but (in theory at least) they have different governments, administrative structure, laws, budgets, official languages, and so on. Articles are about administrative entities, not really about the geographic region. Compare: Jammu and Kashmir (state) (old Indian administration) vs Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) (current Indian administration) vs Azad Kashmir (Pakistani administration) vs Kashmir (geographical region) vs Kashmir conflict (armed conflict). — kashmīrī TALK 06:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kashmiri - In the case of Crimea, we have an article about the geographic peninsula of Crimea as well as articles about the Russian claimed+controlled entity -- Republic of Crimea -- and the Ukrainian claimed entity -- Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Indeed, we actually can define areas as both geographic and administrative areas. It's just that Kherson and Zaporizhzhia aren't compelling as geographic areas in the same way that Crimea is. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are effectively just small chunks of the larger Eurasian Steppe, whereas Crimea is a distinctive geographical feature. This is similar to how Taiwan is an island, so it can be easily defined in terms of both geography and political administrations (ROC vs PRC). | Note: We actually have an article called "Donbas", which covers Donetsk and Luhansk together as a "historical region". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of opinions, there is a real-world administration which is/will be (I'm unsure of the chronology here) a federal subject of the Russian Federation. As such it's a valid article. --Soman (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the precedent of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. Indeed, this is a more clear-cut example than that because Russia at least controls some of this territory currently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is the problem. What territory? My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a comparison, I just searched up "Islas Malvinas", and I was redirected to the article about the Falkland Islands. The former is claimed by Argentina, whereas the latter is administered by the United Kingdom. So, it seems that it's not necessarily a universal practice to create articles about territories that are claimed but not controlled. "Taiwan Province, PRC" is one of the more prominent examples, but I think it exists due to the higher level of controversy surrounding the matter. Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations, and the UN usually describes Taiwan as "Taiwan Province, China". On the other hand, the vast majority of the international community, including the UN, recognises the four Russian-annexed regions as part of Ukraine. So, China has a lot more international support in its territorial claim to Taiwan than Russia has in its territorial claim to parts of Ukraine, objectively speaking. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Falkland Islands don't have their own subnational entity in Argentina, but claimed as part of Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina. If they were their own province, then that would merit an article. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elli - That's not correct. A country has first-tier subdivisions, such as provinces and regions. But countries also have second-tier, third-tier, etc. subdivisions. Islas Malvinas would be classified as a second-tier subdivision underneath Argentine Tierra del Fuego, so it is still an official subdivision of Argentina, just not a first-tier subdivision. On Wikipedia, we have plenty of articles about second-tier subdivisions of various countries. | On Spanish Wikipedia, the article named "Islas Malvinas [es]" covers the Falkland Islands. Meanwhile, Spanish Wikipedia has an article titled "Departamento Islas del Atlántico Sur [es]" (South Atlantic Islands Department), which covers the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands + S. Georgia and S. Sandwich Islands as one of the second-tier subdivisions underneath Argentine Tierra del Fuego. On English Wikipedia, there is no such article, although the claim is mentioned in the Argentine Tierra del Fuego page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Second-tier subdivisions are different from first-tier subdivisions though. Particularly, in many countries, including Argentina and Russia, first-level administrative divisions are federated states that in effect are made up of all their constituents. Second level administrative divisions (for example, in the US, counties) don't have nearly that same level of importance and are generally created by a federated state for administrative purposes. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've pointed out above, Spanish Wikipedia actually has an article about the Falklands + S. Sandwich and S. Georgia as a second-tier subdivision. English Wikipedia doesn't have an article covering this topic, but it theoretically could. Indeed, on the topic of federated nations, the People's Republic of China is a unitary state, and yet there's an article about Taiwan Province, PRC. So, clearly, there is no consistency with this issue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well sure, but that doesn't contradict what I've said. I think it's pretty clear we should have an article on every first-tier subdivision claimed by any country (except if a country would do something silly, like create hundreds of first-level subdivisions claiming random things with no justification or action). Second-level subdivisions simply matter much less. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Just go ahead and create them. — kashmīrī TALK 09:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider doing so if not for the impression of WP:POINT (might create them after this AfD, when that would no longer apply). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something very unique and interesting in such context (I did not know). I think it misrepresents the government of Taiwan as belonging to PRC, which is done by PRC on purpose and seems to be sourced. But unlike the "Kherson Oblast (Russia)", it has defined and stable borders, not a subject of active warfare (yet). My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 6 October 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/Kherson_Oblast_(Russia)&oldid=1148293491"