Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis


 * 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 isn't the proverbival snowball's chance of this getting deleted. I'll also note that the size of the parent article that's referred to is in fact at the level where spinoffs are entirely appropriate. The Bushranger One ping only 08:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an overlinked, overflagged and over-quoted bunch of unencyclopaedic sound bites. I suggest replacing the entire contents with: "'International reaction to the Crimean crisis has largely been condemnatory of Russia's decision to intervene, supportive of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, while also supportive of finding a quick end to the crisis. The United States and the European Union have threatened sanctions against Russia for its role in the crisis. The United Nations Security Council has held three emergency sessions since February 28. The G7 bloc of developed nations (the G8 minus Russia) have made a joint statement condemning Russia and announcing that they will suspend preparations for the upcoming G8 summit in Sochi, scheduled to be held in June.'" Oh, what a coincidence, that's what's already here. Delete and redirect.  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The varied international reactions are quite relevant to the subject. 58.164.28.31 (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I don't think we need to mention the official reaction of every country that made one, and I really don't think it needs its own separate article. Quite a few of the responses don't seem notable to me, just one or two sentences condemning Russia's actions and calling for a peaceful conclusion. The paragraph in the 2014 Crimean crisis article adequately summarises the subject. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral As the creator of this article, I feel that I should speak up. The reason why I created this article was to shorten the main article, 2014 Crimean crisis, which was getting up to almost 150,000 bytes at that point. A list of scores of countries with their little flags by side and respective statements... This is a common phenomenon with rapidly moving current event articles. I'm not particularly a fan "International Reactions" articles, but if this article is deleted, I will bet you that the country responses and the little flags will start re-appearing on the main article. --Tocino 12:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep *Sigh* Do we really have to go through this again? We have a whole category of these Category:International reactions. Browsing through the articles many were put up for AfD for the same reasons. The fact is that this has widespread coverage to pass notability, is encyclopedic, having world views in another article expands the reader's view of the conflict, has foreign perspective, and is of historical interest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Well I forgot to mention that the abundance of sources for the reactions is a function of how the news media works, and is not a reflection of how Wikipedia sees things. Of course there is a whole category created for international reactions, and these all seem to be a feature of Wikis where editors are hungry to contribute by copying stuff off the internet and dumping it here. But, as Wikipedia is not the news says:"Wikipedia is also not written in news style... While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." And plenty of other stuff exists on WP. You start reading through those and I bet you won't last more than 10 minutes before dying or falling asleep out of boredom from routine repetition from the rhetorical condemnations and condolences. Why don't you try Wikisource or Wikiquote or even Wikinews? That's what WP:NOT#NEWS suggests we do:"While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews."--  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Every article is usually different but not in this case (WP:PRECEDENT) the cases are all exactly alike and are nominated for deletion for the same reasons. This would also pass per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:EFFECT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep What said.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of those issues with so many international reactions it makes sense to have a separate article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep No doubt this is notable and useful. The ongoing crisis has tons of international attention with countless responses from various countries and institutions. I agree that, because there are so many responses, a new article is useful. Scarlettail (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep International reactions are notable, and the size of the original article is too large for merging.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohc has nominated a related article, Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis, for deletion. Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * keep Well-sourced to reliable sources. The amount of sourced information is well beyond what could reasonably be merged. Moreover, while the nomination cites MOS:LINK, MOS:FLAG, these are as their names suggest style issues, not reasons for deletion. Claims that this is a quotefarm or soapboxing are unpersuasive. I invite anyone who think otherwise to explain which of the five issues listed in WP:SOAP are at all relevant to this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk) 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Content is notable and well-sourced, consistent with precedents (Category:International reactions), and too large to remain in the 2014 Crimean crisis article. —Lowellian (reply) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. No point in deleting it. Many such articles on different international politics topics.  Facebook like thumb.png DDima 21:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the content is too long to be merged elsewhere. given that many world leaders have made statements (And keep making statements) on the crisis, it merits a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as notable, sourced, and not mergeable elsewhere. --Lockley (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Well sourced, notable and unable to be merged anywhere else without causing an excessive article length. There is really no way this nomination is going to end in a delete or merge, so lets just end the nomination early.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 5 March 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.