Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Georgia-Russia 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. John254 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Georgia-Russia crisis

There is nothing in the article that signifies that a crisis is or has occurred. Basically 2008 is really not that different from 2004-2007 in terms of Georgian-Russian relations. The article just basically has things that happened in 2008.

Delete- Per WP:NOT#NEWS Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous publications about this notable subject, as anyone can see from the list of references provided in the article. The crisis is a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, care to provide a few publications that references that show that the crisis is a matter of fact in 2008? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - International Crisis Group's recent report "Georgia and Russia: Clashing over Abkhazia" is one example. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article makes no mention that this is a crisis. The events in the article are no more a crisis than the events that have occurred between 2004-2007. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent articles for previous military incidents already exist. As these recent incidents resulted in a military buildup in Abkhazia and talk of war on both sides I hardly see how this does not qualify as a crisis and a significant event deserving of its own article. Also it should be considered that these events together with the enhanced ties are sizable, significant, and ultimately if all accommodated under the article on Georgia-Russia relations would most likely result in a split anyway. The lifting of sanctions, followed by the establishment of legal ties with Abkhazia, is a major development in the situation and preceded these heightened tensions and ultimately are part of the reason for heightened tensions. As such all the information present is relevant to the article and all of it is significant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, Russia unofficially had sanctions lifted long ago. Now it's just official. Also, you can't really call it a military build up when Russia is going to increase the number of peacekeepers from 2000 to 3000 (within treaty limits). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. There are other troops which operate beyong peacekeeping mandate, such as railway force in the north of Abkhazia and special forces unit stationed in the region's south. Furthermore, the UN mission confirmed unsunctioned flights of Russian jets which engage in fighting with unmanned and unarmed Georgian drones. Anyway, Russia and Georgia were at the verge of war early in May, something that definitely makes the article notable. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And how exactly is this a crisis? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic has been in the news headlines of all media. I'd say few weeks ago "world" was speaking about these crisis. How this article could be nominated for deletion? This article is not based on announcements, sports or tabloid journalism that would be against WP:NOT#NEWS. Gülməmməd ^Talk 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per WP:NOT#NEWS DonaldDuck (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic which appeared in the international media headlines and led to serious international involvement. Pocopocopocopoco, a long-time combatant on Russia-Georgia issues, wants the article to be deleted because the international response was unusually harsh toward Russia. The article's narrative may need some more cohesion, but there is no valid reason to eliminate it at all. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this article is pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. It is simply unencyclopedic. I suggest you refactor your bad faith assumptions above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable, very important events. It's preposterous that we've now got people citing "NOTNEWS" to justify deleting articles on major world events. If it's in the news, these people say, Wikipedia shouldn't have anything to do with it! I had to laugh at "the article just basically has things that happened in 2008." Everyking (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't like NOTNEWS then how about Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. That is exactly what this article is, an indiscriminate collection of information. If you look at the timeline of Georgia-Russia relations, there is no difference with what is happening now vs what has been happening in the last 4 years. Having an article 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis is like having an article 2008 Iraq-US crisis. Why does 2008 get special treatment? This article suffers from presentism. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you're describing would not be an indiscriminate collection of information. Of course, we should have a broad article on the difficulties in Russian-Georgian relations over the last several years, in addition to articles such as this covering events within a more restricted span of time. The existence of this article is in no way incompatible with an article on the broader situation. Until you can find someone who will argue that this article should be kept but articles on previous problems of a similar magnitude should be deleted, it is preposterous to argue about "presentism" and "special treatment". Everyking (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes but they should cover specific events and not just what happened this year. For example 2006_Georgian-Russian_espionage_controversy is perfectly OK because it is an article about a specific event. 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis is not, it tries to tie in what's happening in 2008 with the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence but there is no evidence that what is written about in the article came because of the Kosovo declaration of independence. Hence we can say that this article is a WP:SYNTH. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plentiful coverage in reliable sources of the present troubles in relations between Georgia and Russia as there has been for other incidents between them for which we quite rightly have articles. Cannot see how this ever meets the 'Routine news coverage' of WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see a lot of reliable sources, and it seems to be clearly notable. Soxred 93 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another attempt (out of many) by Proco (who has specific POV against Georgian articles in general). Iberieli (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A well written article with lots of reliable independent sources like the BBC. Georgia and Russia have indeed been feuding in 2008. Artene50 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what I have understood by reading the newspapers on this, the crisis level of 2008 is such that war is a serious danger. That is far more serious than a mere news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all of the above. —Nightstallion 22:24, 11 June 2008 (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.