Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Crimea

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

WP:SNOW close. It is very, very clear that there is absolutely no consensus for the deletion of this article. Further discussions regarding specific content forks and proper cross-article merging (including proper attribution) should happen elsewhere. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Republic of Crimea

Republic of Crimea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content forking to express a particular POV. Regardless of whatever happens, this article should not remain separate from Crimea (whether it ends up becoming a Russian federal subject, an independent state, or is reincorporated into Ukraine). Further, virtually all of its content was copied over from the Crimea article without proper attribution and then modified to fit the POV. Delete, redirect back to Crimea, and salt (until the dust settles, which may be days or years down the road). --Nlu (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Don't delete, unite this article with Crimea. Viktor Š 18:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article about new unrecognized state. Article Crimea is about different entity – Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The Republic of Crimea covers all Autonomous Republic of Crimea as well as the City of Sevastopol. Aotearoa (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo:
  1. Kosovo (article is about the geographical region of Kosovo.)
  2. Republic of Kosovo (article about partially recognized
    independent republic declared in 2008)
  3. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (article is about autonomous province of Serbia on the territory of Kosovo)
Western Sahara:
  1. Western Sahara
  2. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
  3. Southern Provinces
Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh
  1. Transnistria
  2. Transnistria Autonomous Territorial Unit with Special Legal Status
  3. Nagorno-Karabakh
  4. Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
Abkhazia
  1. Abkhazia
It seems that the current situation in the case of Crimea is comparable with or going to Kosovo and Western Sahara practice. But in that case if we take this solution initial observation is based. Specifically, article
Republic of Kosovo focuses on s Government and Civil authority administering region of Kosovo. Article Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija
focuses on administrative and sovereign claims of Serbia. These three articles are not copies with different titles but rather focus on different and specific topics. It seems to me that this is issue that was raised here. All the best.
--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is independence state and The Russian Federation have already recognized it. mrl586 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remark: @Drmies and myself reached consensus on my Talk page. I will be giving proper attribution later tonight to the content fork by using {{copied-multi}}. If someone else could help us in the meantime we would really appreciate it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, merge later. Republic of Crimea is a newly independent nation, Autonomous Republic of Crimea is still considered a part of Ukraine. They are two different entities, albeit occupying the same (similar -Sevastopol) land. Once the dust settles and either one or the other emerges (or it becomes part of Russia), then either one will become a part of "History" section of the other.--Truther2012 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. What Russia does or does not recognize at this moment isn't all that relevant. The referendum was yesterday, it's a gigantic international shit storm, and we're de facto proclaiming existence? This should be a section in Crimea, for now, until the dust settles. We're not the news. NOT the news. What's this rush all about? Is this really about giving a proper overview of what's happened (not, "what's happening": we're not the news), or is someone trying to make a point? (That's what some of these keep votes are suggesting--"Russia says it's OK!") Drmies (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What has this got to do with news? Wikipedia covers current events, particularly of such high importance.LordFixit (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fo shizzle? "What does this have to do with news?" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news portal. "Republic of Crimea" is a topic of sorts, but it's hard to argue that it is a de jure country, despite what a bunch of people might say. That it was on the news doesn't change that--and moving all the content from Crimea to Republic of Crimea is kind of like creating this country ex nihilo and inventing its history. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't be deleted entirely, because content from it was copied to the
    Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation. —rybec 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Snow Keep Agree or disagree with it the fact is that Crimea is now it's own country. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect until the dust has settled. There's no point having an article on a so-called country that probably won't exist in a fortnight. There are POV issues, and besides, a lot of it is duplicated from elsewhere. In the event that this new Republic is not absorbed into Russia, this will be a legitimate subject. For now, keep it to Crimea. BethNaught (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: 19 different languages and the Simple English Wikipedia also have a standalone article for the Republic of Crimea. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it's already being discussed on NBC Nightly News this evening... if that doesn't make it notable, and verifiable, I don't know what will. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Clearly notable. Republic of Crimea (political entity) is different to Crimea (geographical region) and is recognised by a major world power, Russia. LordFixit (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regarding the original criticism: "Regardless of whatever happens, this article should not remain separate from Crimea (whether it ends up becoming a Russian federal subject, an independent state, or is reincorporated into Ukraine)" - No. There is such a thing as a Crimean Republic government and de facto a Crimean state. It may or my not be legal, recognised, and it may or may not have a future. But it exists, is notable and merits an article. As similar examples I would not only name
    the Confederate States of America (which has a separate article from the American Civil War). "Further, virtually all of its content was copied over from the Crimea article" - Yes. individual pieces of content should be distributed between this and the original article, depending on where they are most relevant. As there is little else going on in the Republic of Crimea except the current controversy, I think it's ok, if this article contained only insignia, demographics, government structure, etc.; and the rest of the content was returned to its initial place. Chymæra (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep (speedy). The indepencence of Crimea has definitively been a notable subject, despite its lack of diplomatic relations. We have Transnistria as a separate article from Moldova, if we make a comparison with another similar topic. This nomination simply doesn't make sense at all. - Anonimski (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. The people of Crimea voted to join Russia and Russia already recognized it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.245.12 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, without merging with separate political and geographical articles. There should be 3 separate articles. The best example for this is the one added by user Mirko S18 for Kosovo:
  1. Kosovo (article is about the geographical region of Kosovo.)
  2. Republic of Kosovo (article about partially recognized
    independent republic declared in 2008)
  3. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (article is about autonomous province of Kosovo on the territory of Serbia)

And the same model for Crimea:

  1. Crimea (article about the geographical region of Crimea)
  2. Republic of Crimea (article about self-declared, partially recognized, defacto independent or for example the part of the Russian Federation, declared in 2014...)
  3. Autonomous Republic of Crimea (article about autonomous republic of Crimea on the territory of Ukraine)

Gaston28 (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Completely inappropriate to delete an article on something because we don't agree with its legitimacy, which is what this nomination smacks of to me (I apologize if I'm inappropriately assuming bad faith). -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copyright violation: as the proposer says, virtually all of its content was copied over from the Crimea article without proper attribution. We do need an article about the unrecognised state in the Crimea - but we don't make articles by simply "copying and pasting", we don't do it without attribution, and we don't make a hatchet job of it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 00:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a copyright violation to copy articles within Wikipedia and you don't even need to attribute anything if it's within one language version of Wikipedia.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely incorrect: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. However, I've posted the proper template, diffs and all, on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Strong and speedy). The Republic of Crimea is a political reality presently existing on the ground. One may like it or not, but this is a fact that cannot be ignored. Deleting the article to keep only the one that refers to Crimea as an Autonomous Republic within Ukraine would also violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The correct thing would be to have three separate articles: one for the Ukranian political entity claiming to be the lawful authority (the Autonomous Republic); another one for the newly declared independent State recognized by Russia that asked to join the Russian Federation and is discharging actual authority over the peninsula; and a third article for Crimea the geographical area, disputed between Ukraine and the Republic of Crimea. Antonio Basto (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Crimea article is about the autonomous republic within Ukraine, which does not include the City of Sevastopol. The Republic of Crimea article is about a mostly unrecognized new state that includes both of those entities. They're not the same thing, so the new article should stay.--Slon02 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everybody calm the **** down. Lexo (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crimea considers itself an independent state, this status is recognised by Russia. It`s may be a puppet state, but real state like North Cyprus or "Independent State of Croatia". Carpodacus (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are probably confusing news circulating about Crimea, but Crimea stopped taking any orders from Kiev since February 21, 2014. Since that time, Crimea has slowly had to be unofficially independent, there were border checks established between Ukraine and Crimea, taxes have been changed so that they go to the local Government, and not to the one in Kiev, Police and Law Enforcement officers took an oath to the republic of Crimea. There is also a self-defense militia of Crimea, and Ukrainian Navy and Army has no permission to enter into Crimea. It has been functioning as a sovereign state, but was formally declared only on March 11, 2014. Members of the local Government (this was before March 16 still) have announced that even if the outcome of the referendum is not joining Russia, Crimea would not become part of Ukraine, and that statement is essentially the point at which one was already sure that Crimea is definitely independent. What happened on March 16, was that the population decided that the Republic of Crimea (which was established on the 11th) should eventually become a Federal Subject of the Russian Federation. I hope that this clears it up for those who are still confused about this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.183 (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per
    WP:Speedy Keep#5 as the article is currently linked to from the main page. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 02:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Why is this article even controversial? Readers wish to come to Wikipedia and read representative perspectives on current events. This is precisely what Wikipedia is all about. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is the case we're doing something seriously wrong--or it's people who don't know what "encyclopedia" means. No, this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Republic_of_Crimea&oldid=1138295058"