Home • Search • Translate
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 keep. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article. A rename discussion is occurring on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Liberation of Kherson

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

Liberation of Kherson (  | 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)

Redundant and a stub; little of the article's contents either can't be or aren't already covered by 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive or the Kherson article itself, and the lack of a combat situation means there's no need for a battle page a la the Second Battle of Lyman. The Kip ( talk) 07:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This is a significant event in the war and is deserving of its own page. The references and information already listed are far more than would be seen in a stub article (and as Adoring nanny mentioned most articles start as stubs and grow from there). BogLogs ( talk) 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are no specific sections in either the article about Kherson itself or the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive that contain the exact portrayal of information that the article " Liberation of Kherson" contains. In order for the information to be considered redundant, close to 100% of the reliable/significant contents of the liberation article would need to be found in those articles, but as it stands, this is not the case. Indeed, I don't believe that the article is redundant since Russia's announcement of its withdrawal from the city was making global headlines only within a few days of Ukraine's liberation of the city. The liberation of Kherson is a significant event in the context of the entire Russian war narrative. Russia's loss of Kherson city means that it no longer controls the capital of one of the oblasts that it claims, demoting Kherson Oblast to the same status as Zaporizhzhia Oblast (in which Russia never controlled the capital, Zaporizhzhia, in the first place). This is a major prestige blow for Putin and his generals, and it could signal the beginning of the end for Russia's declared annexations of four oblasts of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 11:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Many similar examples in which the liberation of an important city has its own article, apart from the article on the war and on the stage of that war. That is not to say the article cannot improve, but the topic as such is fully deserving of an article. Jeppiz ( talk) 12:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Liberation of Kherson is a significant enough event to have its own article. Russian withdrawal from the only regional capitol they've captured and kept throughout the war, followed by liberation from Ukraine. Also, it doesn't matter if it's a stub. When I first saw this article yesterday, it was a three sentences, and has grown since then, and will keep growing.
DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 12:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Do you imply the only reason we should keep this article is because Kherson is a regional capital? If there's no other arguments in favor, this article's notability is questionable. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
No. Many sources (that you can see above) show that the liberation was a turning point in the war. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 13:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
There will be many claimed "turning point[s] in the war", we need to leave that to historians to decide. Its just a regional city, not the capital and the war isn't over, so its far too early to assess its significance. Mztourist ( talk) 03:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All similar articles, such as Liberation of Paris and Liberation of Kalamata, are about actual military engagements. This is not the case of this article, so there's not a set precedent. Also, some editors claim that the information on the liberation of Kherson cannot possibly be hosted in any other article. Then how come we managed to do this when the russians withdrew from northern Ukraine, Snake Island, Kharkiv Oblast, Lyman and northern Kherson Oblast? There's no articles for any of these withdrawals. I also question why should Kherson be the exclusive location to have an article of its own and not other relevant localities like Beryslav, Chornobaivka or Snihurivka.
Some of the editors wishing to keep the article make valid points in that this is a relevant event for the war and that reliable sources describe it as such. We could perhaps expand the scope of this article, to something like "Russian withdrawal from whatever we can name the salient" or even a general article for the Russian-occupied salient at the other side of the Dnipro as a whole since its creation in February (which I think has potential for becoming a long article), in the style of for example Kamenets–Podolsky pocket (not an exact equivalent). Because what is this article in its current state supposed to cover? That russians left the city, civilians celebrated and some country officials gave some declarations over it? Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I guess that's a better way to do it. Most of this stuff is about the withdrawal anyway. "Russian withdrawal from the right-bank of Kherson Oblast" makes more sense than this one article. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 13:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
This excludes the liberated part of Mykolaiv Oblast. We should look for names for this salient in reliable sources, perhaps a common name already exists, in either English, Ukrainian or russian. Super Ψ Dro 13:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Good idea. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 13:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I see Super Dro already proposed a title similar to the one I suggested below under 'Question'. It seems that we will be able to agree on a title with something like Russian withdrawal from..., now we just need to agree on those last few words. I proposed Kherson, but that may be too vague and too limited. Even Kherson city or the right-bank of Kherson Oblast might not do justice to the other towns on the right bank that have been abandoned by the Russian military, including the Mykolaiv Oblast parts, as Super Dro correctly pointed out. We could make it even broader, like right-bank Ukraine, but that would probably cause confusion with the Kyiv offensive and not be specific enough. I do think 'Kherson' should be in the title. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
"Russian withdrawal from the right-bank of Kherson Oblast and Snihurivka" DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
It seems the most accurate name, yes, though it is a bit long (haha). I'm tentatively in favour. Incidentally, I found the Category:Military withdrawals and took the liberty to place this article in it; seems appropriate. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, it is a little long. But there's not really anything else to describe the withdrawal from Kherson AND occupied parts Mykolaiv.
  • good idea
DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Ternovi Pody (and possibly some other villages) was held by Russian forces until 9 November. And that village is on the Mykolaiv Raion, not on the Snihurivka Raion. So this is not valid. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Note that I didn't propose a rename of the article, I proposed an expansion of its scope. And I also want to give priority to my proposal for an article for the February-November Russian salient at the right of the Dnipro rather than an article for the withdrawal of the region. That only extends the geographic scope of the article but also carries the notability problems to those other locations. I would still vote delete for an article on the Russian withdrawal on the area, as that could be easily covered on 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
You can have that opinion, but most people here support keeping the article or renaming it and adding content for the withdrawal. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
'an article for the February-November Russian salient at the right of the Dnipro'? Isn't that already covered by Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Russian occupation of Mykolaiv Oblast? That seems to me a WP:CONTENTFORK and I'm not sure if we need that.
On the long name: I think per WP:COMMONNAME Russian withdrawal from Kherson should be favoured above longer names that may be more WP:PRECISE, but not commonly used in RS. Similarly, articles such as Liberation of Paris do not add the names of lots of suburbs that were liberated/abandoned around the same time as Paris itself. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Russian withdrawal from Kherson sounds fine. Most sources use that anyway:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/11/europe/ukraine-russia-kherson-dnipro-explainer-intl/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135738566/russia-is-retreating-so-why-is-the-u-s-nudging-ukraine-to-compromise
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrainian-forces-move-into-key-town-north-of-kherson-11667991035
https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/11/11/russia-claims-to-have-completed-its-withdrawal-from-kherson
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/11/russians-are-withdrawing-from-kherson-but-the-battle-is-far-from-over.html
https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/11/ukrainian-flags-raised-as-russian-troops-retreat-from-liberated-kherson-city DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
With an article on this salient, we could comment on the military aspects. The Russian occupation articles focus more on what lands did Russia occupy of which province and what was the situation on the localities and for their inhabitants during the occupation. But with such an article, we could comment on how did Russia get to Kherson (as far as I know, it was done with the help of collaborators), the supply of the Russian military there, the aims for Mykolaiv and Odesa (it is said this withdrawal gave the definitive blow to these objectives), the Ukrainian siege of the area with the use of artillery, how it was a resource drain for the Russians on how that might have impacted their final decision to withdraw. Is it WP:CONTENTFORK? Possibly, but I believe it has more potential than the current article.
Similarly, articles such as Liberation of Paris do not add the names of lots of suburbs that were liberated/abandoned around the same time as Paris itself. but are those areas the subject of the article? Paris is a city in the middle of a huge plain, we have to put limits to the scope of the article somewhere. Now, some of Paris' outskirts are indeed included in the article, but that is because the article is not about a peaceful German withdrawal but about the military engagements that had to take place in those suburbs for the Germans to leave Paris. This article and the Paris one are not equivalents. As for this article however, the right-bank salient is a clearly defined geographical area, so the limits for the scope of the article are pretty clear from the start. Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
If you would like to make that, you can, but this article should stay. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 15:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
'Paris is a city in the middle of a huge plain' So is Kherson, with 283,649 inhabitants (2021) as opposed to just 38,849 (2020) in the Snihurivka Raion (some parts of which had already been abandoned/liberated before 9 November, or were never occupied in the first place). I think leaving out Mykolaiv areas from the title is justified. We should mention them inside the article, but not in the title. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That was not my point. I meant that since the occupation of the Paris area had no defined limits, we limited the article to the city itself and to the suburbs were fighting for the city took place. For the Kherson salient we have a clearly defined area, everything the russians still held by 9 November on the right bank of the Dnipro. Also, from what I understand, you suggest to include the whole area in this article but only mention Kherson in the title. Geographically this probably implies including 1-2% of the scope territory on the title; this surely does not happen in the Paris article, as it is a big city and the scope is not this wide. Population-wise, we leave 1/3 to 1/2 (I get this number by adding up Beryslav Raion, Bilozerka Raion and Snihurivka Raion) of the inhabitants outside the title.
I am completely opposed to your proposal of expanding the scope of this article but restricting the title to Kherson. There isn't any precedent in Wikipedia for excluding such vast percentages of population and territory from the title of an article compared to its scope. If we expand the scope, we will have to search for an appropriate title. This isn't even that hard, why abandon this alternative already? I can think of "Withdrawal from Russian-occupied right-bank Ukraine" or "Russian withdrawal from right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts" right now. Super Ψ Dro 16:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Guess how many hits Google has for "Withdrawal from Russian-occupied right-bank Ukraine" or "Russian withdrawal from right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts"? 0.
The article Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts has a justifiably long time. You and I agreed on that, and it is probably mostly due to our efforts that the title was changed successfully. In this case, however, I really don't think such long titles are justified, nor required.
'For the Kherson salient we have a clearly defined area'. If that was true, we wouldn't be discussing how to include bits and pieces of Mykolaiv into the title, but to exclude left-bank Kherson. Perhaps the easiest solution then would be 'Russian withdrawal from the Kherson salient'? Unfortunately that too has zero results in Google.
I think WP:COMMONNAME will have to be our guiding principle. In some comments below, a consensus seems to be emerging to have Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the title, with Liberation of Kherson as an alternative name in the first sentence and infobox. I have been so WP:BOLD as to already carry out the latter, and other users seem to be fine with that compromise. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Do you imply that an event that happened yesterday already has a common name in reliable sources? The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was two years ago, and still the consensus on the talk page is that there's not a common name for the war yet. I reject the notion that a common, proper name already exists for the event. It's just too recent, sources are just using sentences to describe what happened. The same was the case for the 30 September annexation, so the title that was sought was the one that was both the shortest and most descriptive as possible. There's no proper name here, so we should look for a descriptive title even if it's abnormally long, and a descriptive title should describe the contents of the article as accurately as possible. Currently, it is far from doing so, because the scope of the article was expanded from the city to the whole area.
If that was true, we wouldn't be discussing how to include bits and pieces of Mykolaiv into the title the reason why we had been discussing this was because there was no proper name both for this event and for the Russian military salient at the right of the Dnipro. Though this may not be the case for the latter, perhaps the ISW for example came up with a name long ago, but this requires further investigation. Super Ψ Dro 19:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
“The WP:TITLE indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.” The title should probably not contain a detailed geographical gazetteer of the territories related to the subject.  — Michael  Z. 16:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article has WP:SIGCOV and doesn't have to be all too focused on the military engagements (which were indeed minimal) to still be relevant to discuss socio-economic, military-logistical/stragetic, cultural, political etc. events/developments during and around this change of control of Kherson city. I would however advise caution when it comes to using the POV word 'liberation' per WP:MILNAME (see also my comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#On maintaining NPOV terminology. Unless this is the WP:COMMONNAME (which seems to be the case when reviewing RS media coverage), such terms should be avoided. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I mean. We are in a project where the language is the lingua franca of the West. And we are talking about the liberation by a country of one of its illegally occupied cities where the vast majority of people belong to the titular ethnicity of said country. I haven't checked yet but I have no doubt "liberation" is widely used in English-language sources. Super Ψ Dro 14:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
A quick Google search for "Liberation of Kherson" has 92.600 hits. "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" has 94.300 hits (more than I expected, actually). Not to say that all those hits are equally reliable of course, but the numbers are pretty close and slightly in favour of "withdrawal from". On a sidenote, I do call it "liberation of" in my private life, but on Wikipedia we need to follow certain standards such as NPOV, and for the latter "withdrawal from" seems more appropriate. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
As Super Dromaeosarus said (and which I am elaborating), the situation in Kherson Oblast is distinctive in that most of the inhabitants are ethnic-Ukrainians who mostly hold a nationalist Ukrainian identity and are mostly in allegiance with the government of Ukraine. So, the only possible demographic who could oppose the descriptor "liberation" would be Russia, Russophiles in Ukraine, and Russophiles abroad. IMO, there is no real issue of neutrality here. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 16:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Those are still millions of people, Jargo. The rest of the world may think 'X', but just because they are in the majority doesn't mean that 'X' is a neutral way of saying it. WP:MILNAME, WP:NDESC and other policies are clear we should avoid non-neutral terms if we can. As Russian withdrawal from Kherson is a perfectly acceptable title per WP:COMMONNAME, and Liberation of Kherson is widely considered an acceptable alternative name to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, this seems the best solution according to English Wikipedia's guidelines. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
To put it bluntly, nobody cares about those alleged "millions of people". I personally don't care about any Russophiles either in Russia or abroad. The only Russophiles whose opinions might actually matter are those Russophiles who live inside of Ukraine (excluding the ones that were imported into the occupied territories during the ongoing war; i.e. only including the ones that actually lived in Ukraine before the Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014). Based on the principle of " self-determination", my position has solid ground. Self-determination involves primarily the inhabitants of a given territory, and the opinions of the outside world tend to be largely irrelevant. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That's all well and good as your personal opinion, but here on English Wikipedia, we must abide by WP:NPOV. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Self-determination is a neutral point of view. Unless you believe that it is okay for imperialist colonisers to force foreign people under their rule. Obligatory Slava Ukraini. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
If we can't agree on the basic fact that the Russians under Vladimir Putin are the bad guys, then I'm afraid that we won't get very far. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I've also explained in another reply elsewhere on this page that the two titles "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" and "Liberation of Kherson" don't describe the exact same thing. Obviously, there is a discrepancy between whether "Kherson" refers to just the city alone or to the entire surrounding area. There is also the discrepancy between the former event being something that was carried out by Russia, and the latter event being something that was carried out by Ukraine. The two events are not synonymous; they are in fact different events. But they are certainly interrelated and go hand-in-hand. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The title is not POV. Liberation is an objective term for what took place when occupation forces were forced out and the legal pre-invasion régime took military control. It is not an exact synonym of “withdrawal,” which only describes half of the event. It has nothing to do with “ethnicity,” and trying to pull events into an inappropriate ethnic or racial framing is a step along a bad road, to put it politely.
But let’s save the naming arguments for a naming discussion. — Michael  Z. 16:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Question What if we renamed it Russian withdrawal from Kherson, and dated it 9–11 November 2022? This is a name or description also often seen in RS and seems to me an NPOV name for the event. Moreover, one could argue, and indeed some users are doing so on this very page, that the change of control of Kherson city is more due to the withdrawal of the Russian military (officially very organised and planned by the Russian Federation and formally initiated on 9 November by Putin; in practice much less so) as their position was becoming untenable, than that they were forcibly expelled by the Ukrainian military during countless military engagements during these three days (of which we have seen relatively few in the Kherson proper urban areas). The term 'liberation' seems less appropriate then. De facto the ZSU stepped into a power vacuum left behind by the retreating occupying forces. Just curious about your thoughts, as this gives a different angle and scope to what has happened, and I hope it is a more accurate and tenable one. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Liberation doesn't have to come at the end of street to street fighting. If they were forced to leave because their supply lines were cut and the position was untenable it is no less a liberation of the area.
    That said, It wouldn't be the end of the world to me to have the title of the article change but this situation certainly qualifies as a liberation of an occupied area. BogLogs ( talk) 14:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    You make some good points. Also because there is WP:SIGCOV for both names, I wouldn't mind having Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the article title, and Liberation of Kherson mentioned as an alternative name in the first sentence and the infobox. That seems like a good compromise to me. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Support
    DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    That summary is inaccurate original research. The Russian withdrawal was forced, the culmination of months of Ukrainian shaping operations, and long overdue from the Russian military POV. We still have little idea what losses either side suffered during the last weeks and days of operations and the mop-up that may still be in progress.  — Michael  Z. 16:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and Disambiguation - Per WP:NPOV, We should rename it Russian withdrawal from Kherson. Sharouser ( talk) 14:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    What NPOV are you talking about? This is a rather close similarity to Liberation of Paris in that the occupiers withdraw and the army of the country to which the city belongs move in. There is no NPOV issue here. Jeppiz ( talk) 15:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Whilst a rename or scope-broadening or article merger might be in order, there certainly isn't an NPOV issue here. If an NPOV issue genuinely exists, then I implore you to explain your assertion. Otherwise, you are simply throwing around big words without caring what they mean. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 16:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on name A few users above suggest we should name the article Russian withdrawal instead. That is not really in line with policy. First, the users are correct that little fighting was involved, but that would also apply, for example, to Liberation of Paris. Some fighting with the resistance notwithstanding, the Germans withdrew before the Allies moved into Paris. Second, a quick look at reliable sources show that they overwhelmingly use Liberation of Kherson. As per policy, we should go with RS. Jeppiz ( talk) 16:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    We're staying with "Liberation of Kherson" and using "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" as an alternative name. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    The user Sharouser did not express the same opinion above. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 16:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I suggest we focus on whether this article should exist or not and whether it needs to change its scope in order to be kept or not. The name should be discussed on a formal RM. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
@ DinoSoupCanada: 1.5 hours earlier you agreed with me and BogLogs to use Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the title, and Liberation of Kherson as alternative name. Sharouser and Jargo also agree that Russian withdrawal from Kherson should be the title.
@ Super Dromaeosaurus: apart from you, nom and Mztourist, nobody currently seems to be in favour of deleting the article. The sole argument you have put forward so far seems to be that there is not enough relevance or material for a standalone article, but it is pretty evident from the current state of the article, from the sources gathered here and from the searches we've done for fitting titles that it meets WP:SIGCOV. The contents have also grown so that it is no longer a stub. Besides, per WP:SIZERULE, the article 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive is already over 100kb, and a split off would be justified. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I never explicitly agreed that "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" should be the new title. I simply said that it remains a possibility, and I'm indifferent to whether this becomes the new title or "Liberation of Kherson" remains in place. The main point I was getting at is that "Liberation of Kherson" does not genuinely have an NPOV issue. | Note: I would say that these two titles actually describe two distinctive albeit related events. The Russian withdrawal did not necessarily entail the liberation of Kherson, and for two days, it remained ambiguous as to what the status of Kherson would be (in maps published by international media outlets between ~9 and ~11 November, it tends to show the Kherson area as sparsely/loosely occupied by Russian forces). The Ukrainian liberation of Kherson definitively occurred on 11 November. The Russian withdrawal is still ongoing and will probably end after a few more days. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I think I got confused. The reason I said we should use "withdrawal from" as an alternative name is because at this time, that is the alt name.
So I stand by my original statement; The article should be called "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" with "Liberation of Kherson" as the alternative name. I got mixed up between everything happening in this article. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 16:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That's okay, we all get confused sometimes. :) Thanks for clarifying! Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks, good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This event is notable enough to justify having its own article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 19:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This event is significant to the counteroffensive thus, it is notable. Evercool1 ( talk) 23:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Rename this page and all is well. Flyerhotai ( talk) 01:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Given the discussion perhaps we should close with keeping the article via WP:SNOWBALL and move on to Talk:Liberation of Kherson#Title to discuss the title name and article contents in more detail there. BogLogs ( talk) 03:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've already copied a couple of paragraphs to the "Abandonment" section of the main "Battle of Kherson" article. I don't see that there is a lot left to salvage from this article. It's an unedifying "yaa boo, we won" sight. It's shameful glorification and unencyclopedic. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Not really. We're working carefully to make sure that we abide by all English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV. If you think the title should be changed to "Russian withdrawal from Kherson", then please join the discussion at Talk:Liberation of Kherson#Title. I don't think it's a good idea to just copypaste some material to Battle of Kherson. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree with Nederlandse Leeuw, also the Battle of Kherson article is about the Russian seizure of the city from 24 February – 2 March. It's not reasonable to delete one article just to overload another article with information far beyond its scope. BogLogs ( talk) 12:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    If this article is deleted, then where would be the best place for some of that material? Putting it in the Battle of Kherson article seems like a good backup plan. It also demonstrates the redundancy of this article. Which is probably the truthful motive for your objection. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    If it's deleted, parts should be in Battle of Kherson and southern counteroffensive. It'll have to be very watered down though, which is why we should keep the article. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 19:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  Many of the deleters seem to think this article is about a withdrawal that took place in a vacuum over two days. But sources tell us this event is a culmination of the Ukrainian offensive that started near the end of August and result of calculated shaping operations, that Russian generals had been asking Putin for permission to withdraw from the right bank of the Dnipro for many weeks, and that the abandonment of Kherson may have been decided by the time of the Russian occupation authorities’ call for evacuation on October 13. And we have yet to learn of the combat actions that took place surrounding the withdrawal, including Russian losses as they tried to cross the Dnipro. There’s much more yet to be added to this significant article. — Michael  Z. 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply I think that you're mistaken. I think that most delete-voters are aware of the build-up. We are also aware, however, that the material sits best within the context of the Battle of Kherson article. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    So you think the withdrawal and liberation of Kherson is best covered in an article about the exact opposite event that took place in March? DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 19:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's not unheard of to merge two small articles of a town or city being taken and then retaken shortly afterwards, especially if both battles are barely notable and have relatively little WP:SIGCOV. But both Kherson articles are rather large (2,220 words and 2,671 words), and there is a 9-month gap between the the capture and recapture. I don't think a merger is reasonable at this point. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I would argue that the "significance" comes mostly from the fact that Russia declared that it had annexed Kherson Oblast (including the city of Kherson) on 30 September 2022. The actual length of the occupation (over eight months) is also notable, but it's less important. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:15, 14 November 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liberation_of_Kherson&oldid=1125237484"
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 keep. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article. A rename discussion is occurring on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Liberation of Kherson

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

Liberation of Kherson (  | 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)

Redundant and a stub; little of the article's contents either can't be or aren't already covered by 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive or the Kherson article itself, and the lack of a combat situation means there's no need for a battle page a la the Second Battle of Lyman. The Kip ( talk) 07:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This is a significant event in the war and is deserving of its own page. The references and information already listed are far more than would be seen in a stub article (and as Adoring nanny mentioned most articles start as stubs and grow from there). BogLogs ( talk) 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are no specific sections in either the article about Kherson itself or the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive that contain the exact portrayal of information that the article " Liberation of Kherson" contains. In order for the information to be considered redundant, close to 100% of the reliable/significant contents of the liberation article would need to be found in those articles, but as it stands, this is not the case. Indeed, I don't believe that the article is redundant since Russia's announcement of its withdrawal from the city was making global headlines only within a few days of Ukraine's liberation of the city. The liberation of Kherson is a significant event in the context of the entire Russian war narrative. Russia's loss of Kherson city means that it no longer controls the capital of one of the oblasts that it claims, demoting Kherson Oblast to the same status as Zaporizhzhia Oblast (in which Russia never controlled the capital, Zaporizhzhia, in the first place). This is a major prestige blow for Putin and his generals, and it could signal the beginning of the end for Russia's declared annexations of four oblasts of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 11:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Many similar examples in which the liberation of an important city has its own article, apart from the article on the war and on the stage of that war. That is not to say the article cannot improve, but the topic as such is fully deserving of an article. Jeppiz ( talk) 12:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Liberation of Kherson is a significant enough event to have its own article. Russian withdrawal from the only regional capitol they've captured and kept throughout the war, followed by liberation from Ukraine. Also, it doesn't matter if it's a stub. When I first saw this article yesterday, it was a three sentences, and has grown since then, and will keep growing.
DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 12:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Do you imply the only reason we should keep this article is because Kherson is a regional capital? If there's no other arguments in favor, this article's notability is questionable. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
No. Many sources (that you can see above) show that the liberation was a turning point in the war. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 13:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
There will be many claimed "turning point[s] in the war", we need to leave that to historians to decide. Its just a regional city, not the capital and the war isn't over, so its far too early to assess its significance. Mztourist ( talk) 03:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All similar articles, such as Liberation of Paris and Liberation of Kalamata, are about actual military engagements. This is not the case of this article, so there's not a set precedent. Also, some editors claim that the information on the liberation of Kherson cannot possibly be hosted in any other article. Then how come we managed to do this when the russians withdrew from northern Ukraine, Snake Island, Kharkiv Oblast, Lyman and northern Kherson Oblast? There's no articles for any of these withdrawals. I also question why should Kherson be the exclusive location to have an article of its own and not other relevant localities like Beryslav, Chornobaivka or Snihurivka.
Some of the editors wishing to keep the article make valid points in that this is a relevant event for the war and that reliable sources describe it as such. We could perhaps expand the scope of this article, to something like "Russian withdrawal from whatever we can name the salient" or even a general article for the Russian-occupied salient at the other side of the Dnipro as a whole since its creation in February (which I think has potential for becoming a long article), in the style of for example Kamenets–Podolsky pocket (not an exact equivalent). Because what is this article in its current state supposed to cover? That russians left the city, civilians celebrated and some country officials gave some declarations over it? Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I guess that's a better way to do it. Most of this stuff is about the withdrawal anyway. "Russian withdrawal from the right-bank of Kherson Oblast" makes more sense than this one article. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 13:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
This excludes the liberated part of Mykolaiv Oblast. We should look for names for this salient in reliable sources, perhaps a common name already exists, in either English, Ukrainian or russian. Super Ψ Dro 13:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Good idea. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 13:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I see Super Dro already proposed a title similar to the one I suggested below under 'Question'. It seems that we will be able to agree on a title with something like Russian withdrawal from..., now we just need to agree on those last few words. I proposed Kherson, but that may be too vague and too limited. Even Kherson city or the right-bank of Kherson Oblast might not do justice to the other towns on the right bank that have been abandoned by the Russian military, including the Mykolaiv Oblast parts, as Super Dro correctly pointed out. We could make it even broader, like right-bank Ukraine, but that would probably cause confusion with the Kyiv offensive and not be specific enough. I do think 'Kherson' should be in the title. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
"Russian withdrawal from the right-bank of Kherson Oblast and Snihurivka" DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
It seems the most accurate name, yes, though it is a bit long (haha). I'm tentatively in favour. Incidentally, I found the Category:Military withdrawals and took the liberty to place this article in it; seems appropriate. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, it is a little long. But there's not really anything else to describe the withdrawal from Kherson AND occupied parts Mykolaiv.
  • good idea
DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Ternovi Pody (and possibly some other villages) was held by Russian forces until 9 November. And that village is on the Mykolaiv Raion, not on the Snihurivka Raion. So this is not valid. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Note that I didn't propose a rename of the article, I proposed an expansion of its scope. And I also want to give priority to my proposal for an article for the February-November Russian salient at the right of the Dnipro rather than an article for the withdrawal of the region. That only extends the geographic scope of the article but also carries the notability problems to those other locations. I would still vote delete for an article on the Russian withdrawal on the area, as that could be easily covered on 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
You can have that opinion, but most people here support keeping the article or renaming it and adding content for the withdrawal. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
'an article for the February-November Russian salient at the right of the Dnipro'? Isn't that already covered by Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Russian occupation of Mykolaiv Oblast? That seems to me a WP:CONTENTFORK and I'm not sure if we need that.
On the long name: I think per WP:COMMONNAME Russian withdrawal from Kherson should be favoured above longer names that may be more WP:PRECISE, but not commonly used in RS. Similarly, articles such as Liberation of Paris do not add the names of lots of suburbs that were liberated/abandoned around the same time as Paris itself. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Russian withdrawal from Kherson sounds fine. Most sources use that anyway:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/11/europe/ukraine-russia-kherson-dnipro-explainer-intl/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135738566/russia-is-retreating-so-why-is-the-u-s-nudging-ukraine-to-compromise
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrainian-forces-move-into-key-town-north-of-kherson-11667991035
https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/11/11/russia-claims-to-have-completed-its-withdrawal-from-kherson
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/11/russians-are-withdrawing-from-kherson-but-the-battle-is-far-from-over.html
https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/11/ukrainian-flags-raised-as-russian-troops-retreat-from-liberated-kherson-city DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
With an article on this salient, we could comment on the military aspects. The Russian occupation articles focus more on what lands did Russia occupy of which province and what was the situation on the localities and for their inhabitants during the occupation. But with such an article, we could comment on how did Russia get to Kherson (as far as I know, it was done with the help of collaborators), the supply of the Russian military there, the aims for Mykolaiv and Odesa (it is said this withdrawal gave the definitive blow to these objectives), the Ukrainian siege of the area with the use of artillery, how it was a resource drain for the Russians on how that might have impacted their final decision to withdraw. Is it WP:CONTENTFORK? Possibly, but I believe it has more potential than the current article.
Similarly, articles such as Liberation of Paris do not add the names of lots of suburbs that were liberated/abandoned around the same time as Paris itself. but are those areas the subject of the article? Paris is a city in the middle of a huge plain, we have to put limits to the scope of the article somewhere. Now, some of Paris' outskirts are indeed included in the article, but that is because the article is not about a peaceful German withdrawal but about the military engagements that had to take place in those suburbs for the Germans to leave Paris. This article and the Paris one are not equivalents. As for this article however, the right-bank salient is a clearly defined geographical area, so the limits for the scope of the article are pretty clear from the start. Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
If you would like to make that, you can, but this article should stay. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 15:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
'Paris is a city in the middle of a huge plain' So is Kherson, with 283,649 inhabitants (2021) as opposed to just 38,849 (2020) in the Snihurivka Raion (some parts of which had already been abandoned/liberated before 9 November, or were never occupied in the first place). I think leaving out Mykolaiv areas from the title is justified. We should mention them inside the article, but not in the title. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That was not my point. I meant that since the occupation of the Paris area had no defined limits, we limited the article to the city itself and to the suburbs were fighting for the city took place. For the Kherson salient we have a clearly defined area, everything the russians still held by 9 November on the right bank of the Dnipro. Also, from what I understand, you suggest to include the whole area in this article but only mention Kherson in the title. Geographically this probably implies including 1-2% of the scope territory on the title; this surely does not happen in the Paris article, as it is a big city and the scope is not this wide. Population-wise, we leave 1/3 to 1/2 (I get this number by adding up Beryslav Raion, Bilozerka Raion and Snihurivka Raion) of the inhabitants outside the title.
I am completely opposed to your proposal of expanding the scope of this article but restricting the title to Kherson. There isn't any precedent in Wikipedia for excluding such vast percentages of population and territory from the title of an article compared to its scope. If we expand the scope, we will have to search for an appropriate title. This isn't even that hard, why abandon this alternative already? I can think of "Withdrawal from Russian-occupied right-bank Ukraine" or "Russian withdrawal from right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts" right now. Super Ψ Dro 16:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Guess how many hits Google has for "Withdrawal from Russian-occupied right-bank Ukraine" or "Russian withdrawal from right-bank Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts"? 0.
The article Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts has a justifiably long time. You and I agreed on that, and it is probably mostly due to our efforts that the title was changed successfully. In this case, however, I really don't think such long titles are justified, nor required.
'For the Kherson salient we have a clearly defined area'. If that was true, we wouldn't be discussing how to include bits and pieces of Mykolaiv into the title, but to exclude left-bank Kherson. Perhaps the easiest solution then would be 'Russian withdrawal from the Kherson salient'? Unfortunately that too has zero results in Google.
I think WP:COMMONNAME will have to be our guiding principle. In some comments below, a consensus seems to be emerging to have Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the title, with Liberation of Kherson as an alternative name in the first sentence and infobox. I have been so WP:BOLD as to already carry out the latter, and other users seem to be fine with that compromise. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Do you imply that an event that happened yesterday already has a common name in reliable sources? The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was two years ago, and still the consensus on the talk page is that there's not a common name for the war yet. I reject the notion that a common, proper name already exists for the event. It's just too recent, sources are just using sentences to describe what happened. The same was the case for the 30 September annexation, so the title that was sought was the one that was both the shortest and most descriptive as possible. There's no proper name here, so we should look for a descriptive title even if it's abnormally long, and a descriptive title should describe the contents of the article as accurately as possible. Currently, it is far from doing so, because the scope of the article was expanded from the city to the whole area.
If that was true, we wouldn't be discussing how to include bits and pieces of Mykolaiv into the title the reason why we had been discussing this was because there was no proper name both for this event and for the Russian military salient at the right of the Dnipro. Though this may not be the case for the latter, perhaps the ISW for example came up with a name long ago, but this requires further investigation. Super Ψ Dro 19:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
“The WP:TITLE indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.” The title should probably not contain a detailed geographical gazetteer of the territories related to the subject.  — Michael  Z. 16:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article has WP:SIGCOV and doesn't have to be all too focused on the military engagements (which were indeed minimal) to still be relevant to discuss socio-economic, military-logistical/stragetic, cultural, political etc. events/developments during and around this change of control of Kherson city. I would however advise caution when it comes to using the POV word 'liberation' per WP:MILNAME (see also my comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#On maintaining NPOV terminology. Unless this is the WP:COMMONNAME (which seems to be the case when reviewing RS media coverage), such terms should be avoided. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I mean. We are in a project where the language is the lingua franca of the West. And we are talking about the liberation by a country of one of its illegally occupied cities where the vast majority of people belong to the titular ethnicity of said country. I haven't checked yet but I have no doubt "liberation" is widely used in English-language sources. Super Ψ Dro 14:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
A quick Google search for "Liberation of Kherson" has 92.600 hits. "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" has 94.300 hits (more than I expected, actually). Not to say that all those hits are equally reliable of course, but the numbers are pretty close and slightly in favour of "withdrawal from". On a sidenote, I do call it "liberation of" in my private life, but on Wikipedia we need to follow certain standards such as NPOV, and for the latter "withdrawal from" seems more appropriate. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
As Super Dromaeosarus said (and which I am elaborating), the situation in Kherson Oblast is distinctive in that most of the inhabitants are ethnic-Ukrainians who mostly hold a nationalist Ukrainian identity and are mostly in allegiance with the government of Ukraine. So, the only possible demographic who could oppose the descriptor "liberation" would be Russia, Russophiles in Ukraine, and Russophiles abroad. IMO, there is no real issue of neutrality here. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 16:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Those are still millions of people, Jargo. The rest of the world may think 'X', but just because they are in the majority doesn't mean that 'X' is a neutral way of saying it. WP:MILNAME, WP:NDESC and other policies are clear we should avoid non-neutral terms if we can. As Russian withdrawal from Kherson is a perfectly acceptable title per WP:COMMONNAME, and Liberation of Kherson is widely considered an acceptable alternative name to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, this seems the best solution according to English Wikipedia's guidelines. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
To put it bluntly, nobody cares about those alleged "millions of people". I personally don't care about any Russophiles either in Russia or abroad. The only Russophiles whose opinions might actually matter are those Russophiles who live inside of Ukraine (excluding the ones that were imported into the occupied territories during the ongoing war; i.e. only including the ones that actually lived in Ukraine before the Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014). Based on the principle of " self-determination", my position has solid ground. Self-determination involves primarily the inhabitants of a given territory, and the opinions of the outside world tend to be largely irrelevant. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That's all well and good as your personal opinion, but here on English Wikipedia, we must abide by WP:NPOV. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Self-determination is a neutral point of view. Unless you believe that it is okay for imperialist colonisers to force foreign people under their rule. Obligatory Slava Ukraini. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
If we can't agree on the basic fact that the Russians under Vladimir Putin are the bad guys, then I'm afraid that we won't get very far. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I've also explained in another reply elsewhere on this page that the two titles "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" and "Liberation of Kherson" don't describe the exact same thing. Obviously, there is a discrepancy between whether "Kherson" refers to just the city alone or to the entire surrounding area. There is also the discrepancy between the former event being something that was carried out by Russia, and the latter event being something that was carried out by Ukraine. The two events are not synonymous; they are in fact different events. But they are certainly interrelated and go hand-in-hand. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The title is not POV. Liberation is an objective term for what took place when occupation forces were forced out and the legal pre-invasion régime took military control. It is not an exact synonym of “withdrawal,” which only describes half of the event. It has nothing to do with “ethnicity,” and trying to pull events into an inappropriate ethnic or racial framing is a step along a bad road, to put it politely.
But let’s save the naming arguments for a naming discussion. — Michael  Z. 16:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Question What if we renamed it Russian withdrawal from Kherson, and dated it 9–11 November 2022? This is a name or description also often seen in RS and seems to me an NPOV name for the event. Moreover, one could argue, and indeed some users are doing so on this very page, that the change of control of Kherson city is more due to the withdrawal of the Russian military (officially very organised and planned by the Russian Federation and formally initiated on 9 November by Putin; in practice much less so) as their position was becoming untenable, than that they were forcibly expelled by the Ukrainian military during countless military engagements during these three days (of which we have seen relatively few in the Kherson proper urban areas). The term 'liberation' seems less appropriate then. De facto the ZSU stepped into a power vacuum left behind by the retreating occupying forces. Just curious about your thoughts, as this gives a different angle and scope to what has happened, and I hope it is a more accurate and tenable one. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Liberation doesn't have to come at the end of street to street fighting. If they were forced to leave because their supply lines were cut and the position was untenable it is no less a liberation of the area.
    That said, It wouldn't be the end of the world to me to have the title of the article change but this situation certainly qualifies as a liberation of an occupied area. BogLogs ( talk) 14:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    You make some good points. Also because there is WP:SIGCOV for both names, I wouldn't mind having Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the article title, and Liberation of Kherson mentioned as an alternative name in the first sentence and the infobox. That seems like a good compromise to me. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Support
    DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 14:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    That summary is inaccurate original research. The Russian withdrawal was forced, the culmination of months of Ukrainian shaping operations, and long overdue from the Russian military POV. We still have little idea what losses either side suffered during the last weeks and days of operations and the mop-up that may still be in progress.  — Michael  Z. 16:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and Disambiguation - Per WP:NPOV, We should rename it Russian withdrawal from Kherson. Sharouser ( talk) 14:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    What NPOV are you talking about? This is a rather close similarity to Liberation of Paris in that the occupiers withdraw and the army of the country to which the city belongs move in. There is no NPOV issue here. Jeppiz ( talk) 15:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Whilst a rename or scope-broadening or article merger might be in order, there certainly isn't an NPOV issue here. If an NPOV issue genuinely exists, then I implore you to explain your assertion. Otherwise, you are simply throwing around big words without caring what they mean. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 16:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on name A few users above suggest we should name the article Russian withdrawal instead. That is not really in line with policy. First, the users are correct that little fighting was involved, but that would also apply, for example, to Liberation of Paris. Some fighting with the resistance notwithstanding, the Germans withdrew before the Allies moved into Paris. Second, a quick look at reliable sources show that they overwhelmingly use Liberation of Kherson. As per policy, we should go with RS. Jeppiz ( talk) 16:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    We're staying with "Liberation of Kherson" and using "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" as an alternative name. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    The user Sharouser did not express the same opinion above. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 16:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I suggest we focus on whether this article should exist or not and whether it needs to change its scope in order to be kept or not. The name should be discussed on a formal RM. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
@ DinoSoupCanada: 1.5 hours earlier you agreed with me and BogLogs to use Russian withdrawal from Kherson as the title, and Liberation of Kherson as alternative name. Sharouser and Jargo also agree that Russian withdrawal from Kherson should be the title.
@ Super Dromaeosaurus: apart from you, nom and Mztourist, nobody currently seems to be in favour of deleting the article. The sole argument you have put forward so far seems to be that there is not enough relevance or material for a standalone article, but it is pretty evident from the current state of the article, from the sources gathered here and from the searches we've done for fitting titles that it meets WP:SIGCOV. The contents have also grown so that it is no longer a stub. Besides, per WP:SIZERULE, the article 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive is already over 100kb, and a split off would be justified. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I never explicitly agreed that "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" should be the new title. I simply said that it remains a possibility, and I'm indifferent to whether this becomes the new title or "Liberation of Kherson" remains in place. The main point I was getting at is that "Liberation of Kherson" does not genuinely have an NPOV issue. | Note: I would say that these two titles actually describe two distinctive albeit related events. The Russian withdrawal did not necessarily entail the liberation of Kherson, and for two days, it remained ambiguous as to what the status of Kherson would be (in maps published by international media outlets between ~9 and ~11 November, it tends to show the Kherson area as sparsely/loosely occupied by Russian forces). The Ukrainian liberation of Kherson definitively occurred on 11 November. The Russian withdrawal is still ongoing and will probably end after a few more days. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I think I got confused. The reason I said we should use "withdrawal from" as an alternative name is because at this time, that is the alt name.
So I stand by my original statement; The article should be called "Russian withdrawal from Kherson" with "Liberation of Kherson" as the alternative name. I got mixed up between everything happening in this article. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 16:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That's okay, we all get confused sometimes. :) Thanks for clarifying! Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks, good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This event is notable enough to justify having its own article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 19:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This event is significant to the counteroffensive thus, it is notable. Evercool1 ( talk) 23:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Rename this page and all is well. Flyerhotai ( talk) 01:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Given the discussion perhaps we should close with keeping the article via WP:SNOWBALL and move on to Talk:Liberation of Kherson#Title to discuss the title name and article contents in more detail there. BogLogs ( talk) 03:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've already copied a couple of paragraphs to the "Abandonment" section of the main "Battle of Kherson" article. I don't see that there is a lot left to salvage from this article. It's an unedifying "yaa boo, we won" sight. It's shameful glorification and unencyclopedic. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Not really. We're working carefully to make sure that we abide by all English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV. If you think the title should be changed to "Russian withdrawal from Kherson", then please join the discussion at Talk:Liberation of Kherson#Title. I don't think it's a good idea to just copypaste some material to Battle of Kherson. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree with Nederlandse Leeuw, also the Battle of Kherson article is about the Russian seizure of the city from 24 February – 2 March. It's not reasonable to delete one article just to overload another article with information far beyond its scope. BogLogs ( talk) 12:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    If this article is deleted, then where would be the best place for some of that material? Putting it in the Battle of Kherson article seems like a good backup plan. It also demonstrates the redundancy of this article. Which is probably the truthful motive for your objection. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    If it's deleted, parts should be in Battle of Kherson and southern counteroffensive. It'll have to be very watered down though, which is why we should keep the article. DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 19:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  Many of the deleters seem to think this article is about a withdrawal that took place in a vacuum over two days. But sources tell us this event is a culmination of the Ukrainian offensive that started near the end of August and result of calculated shaping operations, that Russian generals had been asking Putin for permission to withdraw from the right bank of the Dnipro for many weeks, and that the abandonment of Kherson may have been decided by the time of the Russian occupation authorities’ call for evacuation on October 13. And we have yet to learn of the combat actions that took place surrounding the withdrawal, including Russian losses as they tried to cross the Dnipro. There’s much more yet to be added to this significant article. — Michael  Z. 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply I think that you're mistaken. I think that most delete-voters are aware of the build-up. We are also aware, however, that the material sits best within the context of the Battle of Kherson article. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    So you think the withdrawal and liberation of Kherson is best covered in an article about the exact opposite event that took place in March? DinoSoupCanada ( talk) 19:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's not unheard of to merge two small articles of a town or city being taken and then retaken shortly afterwards, especially if both battles are barely notable and have relatively little WP:SIGCOV. But both Kherson articles are rather large (2,220 words and 2,671 words), and there is a 9-month gap between the the capture and recapture. I don't think a merger is reasonable at this point. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I would argue that the "significance" comes mostly from the fact that Russia declared that it had annexed Kherson Oblast (including the city of Kherson) on 30 September 2022. The actual length of the occupation (over eight months) is also notable, but it's less important. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:15, 14 November 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liberation_of_Kherson&oldid=1125237484"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE