Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration


 * 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   no consensus. There's no consensus for delete; there seems to be disagreement, however, on whether it should be kept outright or merged to some other article. slakr \ talk / 08:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just a copypasta of a declaration of unclear notability. — Lfdder (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete While some coverage does exist, I don't see the case for standalone notability. GregorB (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cyprus dispute. Looks like the best target to me. Reunification of Cyprus seems more natural, but it is currently a redirect to Annan Plan for Cyprus - not sure if this is really warranted, as I don't think the topic of reunification can be subsumed by the Annan Plan. GregorB (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To merge the 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration to Cyprus dispute is unsuitable. Because, in Cyprus dispute, every new event is summarized as a couple of lines. However, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration is long enough not to be merged there. On the other hand, Cyprus dispute is very large article. Taking there every other thing unnecessarily inflates and blows up that page. These are the first things at a glance; there are others as well. Therefore, it is best to leave it as it is.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered below - without excessive quoting, it is a couple of lines. GregorB (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep After the recent expansion by PWilkinson, the topic does seem to meet the threshold of standalone notability, and a possible merge has been made counterproductive by the size and structure of the new content (even without the debatable inclusion of the declaration's text). GregorB (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

copy-paste of a declaration: The agreed articles of international agreements must not be changed. Taking international agreements mutatis mutandis is not copy-paste. The articles and text of the "Joint Declaration" is completely the same everywhere, and must be so: Cyprus Mail, 11.02.2014: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/02/11/joint-declaration-final-version-as-agreed-between-the-two-leaders/ Parikiaki, 11.02.2014..: http://www.parikiaki.com/2014/02/cyprus-joint-declaration-full-text/ Turkish Independent, 13.02.2014: http://www.turkishindependent.com/news/view/639 Kibkom Times, 13.02.2014: http://www.kibkomtimes.com/02.php Greek News Online, 09.02.2014: http://www.greeknewsonline.com/anastasiades-eroglu-agreed-to-resume-a-new-round-of-talks/ WordBulletin, 11.02.2014: http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/128702/cyprus-talks-resume-in-friendly-atmosphere European Voice, 11.02.2014: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2014/february/cyprus-reunification-talks-restart/79625.aspx Predidency of RoC, 11.02.2014: http://www.presidency.gov.cy/Presidency/Presidency.nsf/All/52F9D262093B3137C2257C7C0040EC43?OpenDocument
 * Strong Oppose (The article must not be deleted): The justifications for the deletion are very illogical at all:

If one changes any article of the agreement and use his/her wordings, many can object, first of all, the sides itself! There may exist a bias to some extent in that case. a declaration of unclear notability: The Joint Declaration just shows at which point the Cyprus Dispute is now for 51 years (since the beginning of the negotiations). "lacking standalone notability": The article makes it easy to understand the current positions of the concerned sides. Bright picture of future Cyprus is seen clearly for outside observers and non-experts. Besides this, the Joint Declarations are important in international arena and is listed in Wikipedia: Joint Declaration: Sino-British Joint Declaration, Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, June 15th North-South Joint Declaration, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration. The article is linked in Wikipedia many times: Cyprus_dispute, Joint_Declaration, Category:Foreign_relations_of_Northern_Cyprus, Northern Cyprus and the European Union.Alexyflemming (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No shit you can't reword the declaration, what I meant was that there's no other content. If this goes down in history as an important joint declaration, we can reinstate the article. WP:CRYSTAL — Lfdder (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cruft isn't content, Alexyflemming. You can stop now. — Lfdder (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "No Sh..t". Do you think you are taking care the minimal respect to the tounge you are using during Wikipedia discussions? Please use polite language...
 * There is content other than the declaration itself:

2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration: The aftermath of the declaration. 2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration: The agreements in which Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are among the signatories. 2014_Cyprus_Joint_Declaration: From here various valuable external links are reached. (WP:Crystal: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.): The declaration is not speculation, a realized event. You seem unfamiliar with the Wikipedia policies.Alexyflemming (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If what you describe as the aftermath turns out to be substantial, it should be covered in an article about this round of negotiations. Otherwise, I see no reason why it can't go in Cyprus dispute. See also and external links are not content -- shouldn't be a consideration here. That's got nothing to do with what I said. Besides, you've used WP:CRYSTAL arguments, e.g. "Bright picture of future Cyprus is seen clearly for outside observers and non-experts". — Lfdder (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge No notability for separate article, since it does not contain anything else than the Declaration itself. By the way, Alexyflemming argues that there are many links in Wikipedia to the article, but somehow forgot to mention that every one of these links has been made by himself. --T*U (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is content other than the declaration itself.. Also, the article just started at 12.02.2014. Hence, the fact that currently only me linked to the article does not show others will not link in future. When the article gets mature and its awareness increases, other people may link the article or use it in other ways. Alexyflemming (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep While it is almost certainly inappropriate, at least at this stage, to give the full text of the declaration in the article - what would be appropriate is a short summary or even just a link at a suitable place in the article to the full text of the agreement - it is ludicrous to dismiss an agreement like this between the leaders of two communities which have effectively been at war for forty years as not notable. The sources Alexyflemming has given above are all, to the best of my ability to judge, both reliable and substantial, even though it is details of the background of and/or reaction to the agreement that they should be sourcing rather than the verbatim text of the agreement. And there is plenty more available international coverage with which to give the detail that needs to be in the article. And the story is almost bound to continue - for obvious reasons if the initiative succeeds, but even in the case of failure, in terms of the political consequences in one or both communities. And the part of Cyprus dispute dealing with recent years is currently basically a timeline with only chronology to connect it up - the declaration and its aftermath will be far easier at least for the moment to develop as a spin-out article that is just summarised in Cyprus dispute. PWilkinson (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources you list predominantly do not treat the declaration directly, as a central topic, but as a part of the much larger story of Cyprus reunification. This makes it natural to treat it this way too, and split it out once it naturally evolves into a standalone topic, as per WP:SPLIT. That's why I'm changing my position from delete to merge (see above). GregorB (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To merge the 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration to Cyprus dispute is unsuitable. Because, in Cyprus dispute, every new event is summarized as a couple of lines. However, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration is long enough not to be merged there. On the other hand, Cyprus dispute is very large article. Taking there every other thing unnecessarily inflates and blows up that page. These are the first things at a glance; there are others as well. Therefore, it is best to leave it as it is.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is long simply because it seems to unnecessarily quote the entire text of the declaration. Without it, it is two or three sentences, which is in line with coverage of other events in the target section. GregorB (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to merge as per GregorB's arguments. What little content there is, can easily be merged. The entire text of the declaration has no place in a Wikipedia article. (Neither will you find Magna Carta, the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or similar texts. They belong in Wikisource, as this Declaration does, if at all.) --T*U (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "little content": The article is just 1-week-old. Please be patient. Though it is little now, it is growing. Many large articles of Wikipedia started with little content once upon a day.
 * "The entire text of the declaration has no place": This depends on the article. For the case of Cyprus, the sides are negotiating for 51 years. There are thousands of books, articles on Cyprus Dispute, and this Joint Declaration clearly summarizes to what point the sides reached after 51 years. In Magna Carta, the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there were not two very rival sides as is the case for Cyprus.
 * Merge option: Merge is not suitable: In Cyprus dispute, or Cyprus dispute, every new event is summarized as a couple of lines. However, 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration is long enough not to be merged there. On the other hand, Cyprus dispute is very large article. Taking there every other thing unnecessarily inflates and blows up that page. These are the first things at a glance; there are others as well. Therefore, it is best to leave it as it is. Alexyflemming (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have just added some background information to the article. I would ask participants in further discussion here and the closing administrator to note that the above discussion took place before I did so. I do not think that this precludes merger to Cyprus dispute, but would suggest that if this happens, the declaration and resulting negotiations and other developments are given a separate subsection there. PWilkinson (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me - I've changed my position from "merge" to "keep" (see above). Thanks! GregorB (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except this article's no longer about the joint declaration, but the new round of negotiations. — Lfdder (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ...which seems to be based on the declaration. To me, the aftermath section makes the reasonable (if not really rock-solid) case for standalone notability. GregorB (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the declaration's been made out to be the foundation for it -- but I'm not sure to what degree we ought to reflect the political theatre. If the article's to be kept, it seems to me that it should be moved to a new title, e.g. '2014 Cyprus talks'. Are we gonna keep expanding the aftermath section with everything that's to come? — Lfdder (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the future, the article's title or focus might change, and it is quite possible that eventually it will indeed become just a section in Reunification of Cyprus or some such target. (And, to be quite honest, it should have really been started this way.) GregorB (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think that a deletion/merge is the best solution, since this article came off on the wrong foot, so to speak. I feel it is far to early to say that the "2014 Cyprus talks" deserves a separate article in WP. But if consensus goes against me, I strongly suggest an immediate name change. --T*U (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk (Negotiation) is the most frequently observed thing in Cyprus. Since 1963, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are talking (negotiating). In Wikipedia, these processes that extends to years are called "New Negotiations". That's to say, for every year a new heading is not opened like "2008 Cyprus Talks", "2009 Cyprus Talks", "2010 Cyprus Talks" etc. On the other hand, when one looks into the Agreements signed by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, their number is very few:Zürich and London Agreement(1959), Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (1975), 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration. When looked in this way, the importance of the "Joint Declaration" is awared; and hence, I think, not only "changing the title" but also "merging the article" would not be a good idea. As for the other agreements (1959 and 1975), there are separate Wiki articles.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But the declaration is not an agreement, but just what it is called: a declaration. It is a piece of paper stating good will to try to make something happen. But it has not happened yet, and nobody knows if anything significant will happen. If the negotiations get started, and if they ever lead to anything, then there may be room for a separate article on Wikipedia about "2014 Cyprus talks" or even "Cyprus reunification", or it might end up as "2014 Cyprus crisis". The declaration per se will, however, hardly be the pivoting point of that article.
 * To the point about there already being an article about the Population exchange of 1975. Yes, there is, because you started it, and it has been suggested for redirect/merge because it has even less real content than this one. Claiming support from something you yourself have created is, in effect, claiming support from yourself. --T*U (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge into Cyprus dispute. While the background section was recently added, that section is not about the joint declaration. First four references in this section (or that mean the text before the actual text of the declaration) even do not mention the joint declaration. That means that probably this information does not belong here or if the article covers wider topic, the current title is incorrect. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not the depository of legal texts, so copying the full text of the declaration into the article is not in line with the policies. The article should be about the declaration, not the mirror of the declaration's text. Taking away these parts, there is very few information to justify the separate article. Therefore, merging into Cyprus dispute seems to be the best option. If the article would be kept and not merged, it should be speedily renamed 2014 Cyprus talks to keep the title in line with the content. Beagel (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: Alexyflemming (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. The case should be closed as Keep I think. Many peoples contributed and still develops the article. Also, thanks to PWilkinson since he contibuted to the article with very good appearance both readability and embellishments.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You only get one vote, so please strike out one of your votes. --T*U (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You only get one vote, so please strike out one of your votes. --T*U (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources provided by User:Alexyflemming, which are substantial and show this is a real thing. It is reasonable to assume that as the talks progress, there will be further updates which will give the article scope to expand.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep The article in its current form clearly mets the original objection. It is not just a reprint of the text. Possible merges can be considered separately.  DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.