Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion


 * 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 is no consensus about whether this topic merits treatment beyond what we have in Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany and Enlargement of NATO. People seem to agree, though, that the title is suboptimal and the article needs cleanup.  Sandstein  08:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is pretty much an essay, and should probably be condensed and merged with an existing article. It seems like a very specific topic to be a standalone article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Europe,  and Russia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep there's books and articles about this topic  . It is a common propaganda narrative in Russia that Russia is right in everything because NATO broke an informal verbal declaration promising not to expand beyond East Germany after the German unification in 1990. It was in fact used in one of Putin's speeches before the invasion started.  Super   Ψ   Dro  09:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Delete and WP:STARTOVER. IMO there is enough WP:RS out there, maybe they aren't that common in English. A09090091 (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, redirect or merge. We do have page Enlargement of NATO, and the books above are actually on the enlargement subject. I would suggest to redirect  to Enlargement of NATO or possibly merge with it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not only about NATO expansion, but about NATO expansion beyond the Iron Curtain and how it has strained NATO's relations with Russia. Russia probably wouldn't have cared a lot if Ireland or Switzerland joined NATO in 1990. That NATO enlargement beyond the Iron Curtain is illegitimate is an actual narrative in the Russian academic world . I remind that Putin himself demanded NATO not to keep expanding and to retreat its troops from the states that joined after 1997 . He talked about how NATO betrayed Russia by expanding five times for months prior to his attack on Ukraine . He also talked about it in the 2007 Munich speech of Vladimir Putin: "What happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?". This is a thing that's been going on for a while among the Russian public. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This page is also an attempt to recreate deleted/redirected page Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations, but just make it bigger. A legitimate subject here is Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, and we have such page. This page, as written, is basically a POV fork of deleted Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations or Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable, as it's shown by the good coverage in reliable secondary sources - also authoritative academic sources such as Foreign Affairs, International Security and Journal of Cold War Studies (all quoted in the article). While further refinements through the usual WP:EDITING process are possible, the article is definitely not an WP:OR, and to me it looks largely complaint with WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * These sources cover so called "Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations", which would be a more legitimate subject than this page. However, such page was already deleted at an AfD, see last version here: . In fact, no promises of non-expansion was made, especially in written. By creating this page someone was making two points: (a) the complaints by Putin and his administration were legitimate, and (b) they were highly notable. None of that is true. Yes, this should be mentioned on a few pages (and it is already mentioned), but this POV fork does not deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Having a page on Holocaust denial does not imply that it didn't happen. Likewise, having this page doesn't imply Putin is right. And I would argue that such narratives are indeed notable, considering Putin was talking about them in the same speeches in which he was making ultimatums to the world's largest military alliance. Super   Ψ   Dro  07:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the Holocaust denial is a notable subject. Not every "controversy in Russia" is notable. That one does deserve to be noticed on a couple of other pages, and it is already noticed there. This page I believe is a POV fork and a recreation of another already deleted page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems specific to the reception in Russia. It can be kept. There is more information available now regarding how Russians view the influence of NATO, and also how Ukrainians view it. This can be also covered on the article. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gitz666; important topic, relatively compliant with NPOV, potentially needs editing. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Any article that starts by describing something as controversial is presenting a point of view, at odds with WP:NPOV. My !vote is informed by this essay WP:DTTC which speaks to the value of presenting facts, not stating how controversial they are. I think therefore content could be included in other articles (so a redirect could be OK) but I also question if the sources suggest notability? i.e. do they show the notability of "Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion" or just that "the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion" is a debate? I cannot tell, it would take a lot of effort to dissect that, but it seems clear that this is an essay. CT55555 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * CT55555 has a good point. The word "controversy" is not advised in WP articles. Might I suggest consideration of a rename, due to this factor, to Assurances given to Russia regarding NATO expansion? The assurances are well documented now in the academic literature. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be even more problematic. No any assurances were given to Russia regarding NATO expansion, at least in written, as documented in the literature. What they talked about in person during meetings is an interesting question but hardly worthy a page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete voluminous but low quality fork for Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which already discusses the topic of about whether assurances were given during negotiations or not.--Staberinde (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge The topic is a recurring foreign policy debate in Russia, but as others pointed out, presenting it as a controversy over legitimacy could bias the audience. I'd suggest merging much of its content into Enlargement of NATO in a "Controversy" or "Ex-Soviet responses" section. At the very least it shouldn't be deleted as it fulfills both sufficient conditions for WP:EVENT. Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. This seems to be just a reiteration of the discussion we had at Articles for deletion/Baker-Gorbachev Pact a few months ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.