Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia – South Ossetia relations


 * 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   Speedy Keep with a touch of snow. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Russia – South Ossetia relations

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

pr WP:POVFORK of disputed "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", South Ossetia is a disputed region currently under Russian control after the 2008 South Ossetia war, no internationally recognized Republic of South Ossetia exists, therefore it would be inappropriate to have an article on Wikipedia describing diplomatic bilateral relationship between Russia and the territory that is internationally considered part of Republic of Georgia. Termer (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Disruptive nomination. It is not a POV-fork. It is an article outlining the bilateral relationship between Russia and South Ossetia; whilst South Ossetia is not internationally recognised, neither is Kosovo, yet I don't see you nominating any of the articles in Category:Bilateral relations of Kosovo for deletion. Here you go, go nominate Estonian–Kosovan relations for deletion, using the same argument, otherwise this needs to be seen as nothing more than a disruptive nomination. Particularly as there is heaps of information in the article outlining the relationship between the two states which would not fit in any other article, and additionally, this article is focussed ONLY on the Russia-SO relationship. Suggest speedy close. --Russavia Dialogue 07:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Kosovo? Its independence is recognized by 62 UN member states. This is very much international recognition unlike the Republic of South Ossetia that is currrently recognized by Russia who controls militarily the region and Nicaragua.--Termer (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What does international recognition have to do with bilateral diplomatic relations between two countries? As long as they recognize each other, diplomatic relations do exist. Offliner (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment bilateral diplomatic relations between two countries? Exactly! the problem is that the region controlled by the Russian military which internationally is considered a part of the Republic of Georgia...are not "relations between two countries" as a fact but as an opinion. The bottom line, South Ossetia is not a country but disputed territory with whom it's impossible to have "relations between two countries". --Termer (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "relations between two governments" then? Offliner (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much international recognition? Come talk when it is admitted to the United Nations, which is generally the best litmus test as to whether an entity is very much internationally recognised. Other than that, this is a disruptive nomination on your part. In fact, your very answer has shown that. You won't go and nominate the Estonian-Kosovo article, even though it has absolutely NOTHING in it, yet you delete this article, which clearly shows that there is a bilateral relationship between the two states, and you are claiming there is not. What you are asking WP to do is to take sides on the issue, by expunging an article which is written from a neutral POV, in order to fit in with your own POV. --Russavia Dialogue 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, South Ossetia is not a state but Georgian territory controlled by the Russian military. I don't have anything else to add.--Termer (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Termer, do you have a tertiary education in international law and international relations. Are you widely published in that arena? Go and read Bilateralism, as you will soon see that there is clearly a bilateral relationship between Russia and SO, it is just that you don't agree with it, and your opinion doesn't really matter; what matters is what reliable sources say, and the sources clearly show the relationship. --Russavia Dialogue 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought this up what matters is what reliable sources say Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state' and others speak about the Russian occupation of Georgia (Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly - Working Papers).--Termer (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am glad that you brought it up also, because I now have the opportunity of directing you towards Russia_–_South_Ossetia_relations, where what Kokoity said is already covered - by the way, yet more sloppy reporting from the British press, for Kokoity don't speak for the Kremlin, only for South Ossetia govt, yet The Times says it is the Kremlin saying it in the article. If that article was to be inserted into WP, it would have a big fat SYN and OR tag slapped on it ;) --Russavia Dialogue 08:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kidding right? Kokoity don't speak for the Kremlin? You could as well rename the article Russia – Russia relations and everything would be according to the facts, not fantasies, and you'd get speedy keep also from me. Happy editing!--Termer (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - this looks an awful lot like a bad faith nomination, aimed exclusively at precluding the article from appearing in the DYK section, now that all other attempts have been exhausted. Óðinn (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I'm afraid I'll have to agree that this looks indeed like a disruptive nomination, as the nominator's argumentation seems completely invalid. Bilateral diplomatic relations between Russia and South Ossetia do exist - the two have recognized each other - and this is demonstrated by the 40+ sources in the article. Offliner (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another Speedy keep. The article is well sourced, and after reviewing the debate here and the situation around this article, it does not seem that this nom was made in good faith. Also, and most importantly, just because another entity does not recognize the relationship, does not mean it isn't there. Russia and South Ossetia do have formal diplomatic relations, which is shown quite clearly in the article. Pax85 (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep the argument is based on a failure of NPOV and a desire that the world be different. No matter how good the  case for wishing  so,   it doesnot affect the present article.  DGG (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Take any concerns to the article talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per DGG. The fact that only Russia and Nicaragua have recognized S. Ossetia does not make the article a POV fork of anything. It's a totally legitimate title to cover diplomatic relations of Ossetia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Most of the county-X-relations-with-country-Y articles are worthless (there just ain't that much going on between, say, Malta and Tajikistan), but Russia-South Ossetia relations actually matter. This should be evident to anyone who's been paying attention to world affairs over the last year. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (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.