Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian-occupied territories


 * 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   delete. only (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Russian-occupied territories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic is already covered in the Georgian–Ossetian conflict and Georgian–Abkhazian conflict in addition to articles on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might be a good idea to have an overview of these places and others (Transnistria comes to mind; I don't know of any others) in which the presence of Russian soldiers is related to the international dispute.  However, the title and contents of the article are both pretty badly not in compliance with WP:NPOV.  Time to delete it under WP:TNT and perhaps recreate it as a neutral article; we'll have to be careful to make it an encyclopedia article, unlike the current news ticker format.  Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep.


 * The topic isn't already covered in Georgian–Ossetian conflict  and Georgian–Abkhazian conflict . Can one say that because there is already article about Israeli–Palestinian conflict then Israeli-occupied territories should be deleted? You should point out exactly which part of this articles are covered in the existing articles.
 * This article must stay because this if there is such article as Israeli-occupied territories while there are also this article International recognition of the State of Palestine, then why shouldn't there be article about international opinions on Russian military presence in parts of Caucasus that is considered by many as Russian Occupation?
 * The article is about Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's status as "Occupied Territories". There is an article about their recognition as independent states - International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia. This article covers quite a different aspect of international opinion on Abkhazia and South Ossetia than artidcle about International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia.
 * This new article extends already amassed knowledge about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If Wikipedia claims to be a neutral entity, then both opinions about Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which covers not only the their International Recognition as Independent States but also their Recognition as Occupied Territories should stay and be heard across the world. One should have the possibility to compare both point-of-views. The only entity that harshly denies Russia's presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be called as Occupation, is Russia. If anybody deletes this article, it may suggest that he/she is biased toward Russian point-of-view. By deleting this article Interested Persons may claim that only Georgia considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Occupied Territories which simply is the cover-up of obvious facts. Wikipedia should spread new uncovered facts, not try to bury them.
 * There are enough references in the article to verify the facts. I don't agree with previous editor that the article should be deleted, espexcially under WP:TNT.
 * There is also similar article about Georgian Law about Occupied Territories in another Wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Закон_Грузии_«об_оккупированных_территориях» — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgagloev (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article fulfills all the criteria of WP:Notability. It offers significant coverage, is reliable and presumed and has verifiable sources. --Zgagloev (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence Other than the appeal to wp:OSE (and statements like "Wikipedia should spread new uncovered facts, not try to bury them." - which are verging on wp:Soapbox), I fail to see a point having that article alongside Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence and believe that the latter article is far, far better written, actually appearing to be an encyclopaedia. Neonchameleon (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete. Propaganda piece. An inherently POV and too general title. The whole Siberia is "Russian-occupied territory", not to say about pieces of Belarus (undisputed) and disputed pieces of Baltic States (don't forget East Prussia). The authors are advised to move useful article content into the corresponding main articles. There may be articles kind of List of territorial disputes involving Russia and Russian military presence abroad or something. You are also free to translate ru:Закон_Грузии_«об_оккупированных_территориях» into english wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have searched wikipedia, you would have found out that there are articles of this kind you have suggested: Occupation of Gori, Kuril Islands dispute, Russian conquest of Siberia, Near abroad, List of Russian military bases abroad --Zgagloev (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Soviet occupation zone is a POV fork of East Germany. Occupation of the Baltic states is a POV fork of Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR and Lithuanian SSR. Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina is a POV fork of Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Japanese invasion of Manchuria is a POV fork of Manchukuo. Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union is a POV fork of Western Ukraine. --Zgagloev (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as an inherently POV fork, from the title downwards, of Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Prove that the article is POV fork, rather than a simple statement and description of verified facts. --Zgagloev (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2013 (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.