Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence


 * 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 (non-admin closure), improvements made to article consensus reached as keep. Fr33kman talk APW 06:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV-fork of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, indiscriminate collection of personal opinions of questionable notability. Colchicum (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and numerous arguments presented at Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--KoberTalk 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This doesn't seem to have anything we couldn't have in the parent article, but there could be something in there worth merging, and it's a potential search term. -- Explodicle  (T/C) 16:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Russavia has made some good improvements to the article and I like the new direction it has taken. Changing my opinion to keep. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Kosovo has a similar article. There is controversy about this subject. The article has plenty of sources. Besides, the international recognition article would be too crowded if we merged and added all of these opinions to that article. --Tocino 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Colchicum (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea! But as it is now the article is nothing more then WP:FORK and WP:NPOV, I tried to delete the opinions sector since it had the most WP:FORK and WP:NPOV but some keep bringin it back, then I lost my temper..., but at least I didn't invade the article using military force... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be reinforcing with the involved editors then that no-one owns the articles, without WP:BITE. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Controversy is there, and while it needs improvement, NPOV is not a deletion criteria. Vrefron (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV is not a deletion criterion, content forking is. Colchicum (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable, in the sense that the hypocrisy and double standards of both sides of the recognition divide has been widely reported in the media and by political analysts. There are several avenues the article can take includingt he obvious comparison of A & SO to Kosovo, the legality of A & SO declaration of independence in the 1990s, the legality of recognition under international law. International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is already quite long due to the long list in that article, but somewhere is going to be needed to place scholarly analysis. I do join with most others in the sense of being unbalanced, but I can give you examples of many articles on WP which have an extremely anti-Russian (some bordering on outright hatred) flavour to them, but the solution to this is to provide balance. And yes the embedded lists do need to go and to be standardised as per WP standards, but all it needs is for editors to be WP:BOLD and make the changes, and remember that no-one owns articles on WP, so it will not be hard to balance the views out and build an encyclopaedic article, because this is one topic which will be debated for many years to come, and it needs a presence on WP. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as content fork of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and indeed an "indiscriminate collection of personal opinions of questionable notability". This article could be OK if its subject was defined differently. This article should explain first what the controversy is about. For example, Russia did not recognize independence of Chechnya but recognized Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Or, for example, Russian military forces occupied these territories and then declared them independent, even though they are currently occupied. This article should also explain why other countries did not recognize their independence. One of the answers: that was a purely unilateral occupation by a single country (Russia), unlike operations by NATO in Kosovo (an operation by all NATO countries), invasion of Iraq (a "coalition of willing"), and the Hitler's occupation of Chechozlovakia (Munich agreement). Hence the "recognition" also remains unilateral. Biophys (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCLEANUP -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete exactly what the nominator said. Ostap 20:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia per WP:CFORK. DonaldDuck (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you mean WP:CFORK? -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. DonaldDuck (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have removed the opinions section and placed a notice on the article talk page. And have introduced information on Kosovo, and whether it does or doesn't create a precedent for A & SO. This is not my own POV, but based upon the POV of 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results. This topic is controversial and as I have noted in the lead, both sides have been accused of hypocrisy, double standards and breaking international law, and this is one topic which already has been the result of much analysis, and will continue to be the result of analysis in international law in the future, and is clearly encyclopaedic in nature and should not be deleted, but worked upon. Now, of course, the pro-Georgian, anti-Russian crowd above (they know who they are) will totally disagree because put simply they do not want such a topic on WP because they want to portray Russia as an evil monster and want as much condemnation on here as possible, but their desires have to be overridden by 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many times you repeat them, Google hits are not a reliable source on their own, nor a replacement for consensus. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus thus far is based upon the embedded list of quotes which has now been removed, so for all intents and purposes, the consensus surely now has to start yet again. International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is already too long approaching the 100kb mark, and can no longer be regarded as WP:CFORK but must be regarded as WP:SPLIT. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that there was already a consensus here, I just don't think we should let Google searches alone override our editors. That being said, I like what you've done with the article; both the international recognition article and the 2008 South Ossetia war article are too long and this looks like a good place to elaborate. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I know you weren't implying there was consensus already, I was just pointing out that due to major change in subject content, that the major problem that people seem to had with the article is gone...of course, it can come back if wikified and written as prose, not just simply as a quotefarm. Additionally, the Google hits was done as a head them off at the pass manouevre with a presumption that editors could use the same excuse at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in trying to rid the Kosovo precedent claiming it's not notable and has nothing to do with the subject at hand (with one also claiming I have to prove a precedent...of course that's not my position to do, I simply have to work with what WP:RS state, and the Google test was to show there is plenty of those to use and that it is a notable subject. And thanks for changing your position also, there's still a lot of work to go yet though. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The POV concerns seem to be misplaced now and calling it a fork is weak given the large amount of content in the other article. If this information was put in that article it would probably be split.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and well-sourced.--Miyokan (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The topic seems to be either a fork from International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or an ORish compilation of unrelated events, which are presented to prove the author's opinion. I haven't found any scholarly sources per WP:V to justify this topic and the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which events would you say are unrelated? -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another source entitled "Kosovo Precedent Prevails" which has further information and is going to be used as a source for information. Just as I have taken info from the Heritage Foundation and will be taking information from a whole range of sources to expand on what the controversy is. And its not all pro-Russian, a good half of it is anti-Russian. As time goes on, there will be more and more sources which will delve into the legal aspects, and at that stage they can and will added. Refer to the correspondent Kosovo article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 03:35, 12 September 2008 (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.