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 redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Any salvageable content can be merged from the history, with attribution. – bradv 🍁 15:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Abkhazia–United States relations

Abkhazia–United States relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Abkhazia–United States relations

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abkhazia–United States relations. This is a second nomination , but the spelling and punctuation of the title is apparently different than in 2014 .

The United States has never recognized either Abhkazia or South Ossetia, and articles on relations between the United States and both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been deleted as non-encyclopedic, and redirected to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This article was recently accepted from draft, apparently by good-faith mistake by a reviewer. Nothing has changed with regard to non-relations between the United States and Abkhazia since 2014. The United States still considers both Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be de jure parts of Georgia that were invaded by Russia in 2008, and that are essentially Russian puppet states. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep You're just arguing it because you don't like it. There is an encyclopedic value to this. You're arguing that the editor who accepted this did it by mistake. What basis do you have for that claim? It should be noted that the nominator is doing this because he rejected my draft on South Ossetia relations with the U.S. which he said lacked notability and I've been appealing my South Ossetia to be accepted. Robert McClenon, I don't think you are assuming good faith. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 19:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I know that User:WikiCleanerMan is acting in good faith. They simply disagree with me, and with the past consensus of the Wikipedia community in 2014, as to the notability of articles on relations between the United States and two regions which the United States does not consider to be countries (and most of the world does not consider to be countries). I agree with WCM that we should be consistent about the treatment of these two places, that are non-recognized in the same way. Either the 2020 deletion on South Ossetia should be overturned, which is what WCM wants, or this article should be deleted. If this article is kept after adequate discussion, I will be in favor of revisiting the South Ossetia article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Why can't we have both? The Abkhazia article has information that is separate from South Ossetia. Robert, I'm assuming you haven't read both articles. And again, I'm assuming, you haven't looked at the credible sources used in both articles. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Also Robert, you are making yourself look bad when you comment on another user's talk page and say that I might be a part of the problem as you stated on Missvain's talk page. I also want to know if you ever did a thorough reading of my then draft of Somaliland–United States relations when accepting it aside from cutting down the redirect. And another reason you are probably nominating this article for deletion is that I mentioned it for the re-review on my South Ossetia article in which I mistook you for accepting it in the first place. You should take back this nomination because I don't think you are doing it with a neutral viewpoint. And just because nothing has changed doesn't mean nothing has happened. Take a look at the large paragraph in which American legislation has banned U.S. aid to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Significant information that can't be denied by claiming it does not have encyclopedic value. And by redirecting this to the internation°al recognition article would be moot when clearly America's relationship with Abkhazia and South Ossetia isn't the same as the majority of countries which refused to recognize them or have not and will not recognize them. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I am saying that we should either have both articles or neither article, and that my preference is neither. I have not analyzed the sources. There is a myth in Wikipedia that acceptance or retention of an article is based entirely on the quality of the sources. Reliable sources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the acceptance or retention of an article. If a large number of reliable sources write about a topic that is not notable in itself, the result is a well-sourced non-notable topic. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC) :::There have been two deletion discussions about US-South Ossetia relations, in 2014 and in 2020, both of which resulted in a conclusion to delete. Then you, User:WikiCleanerMan, tried to advise me to accept South Ossetia, ignoring a very recent deletion discussion as well as an older one, and I tried to advise you to go to Deletion Review, but you didn't go to Deletion Review, but just tried to say that I should ignore the AFD and accept your draft anyway. So here we are at an AFD on the US and Abkhazia. I am trying to be consistent, and I am trying to follow procedures. Now you need to make your case here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I have gone to deletion review. I have been making my case and I never said you should ignore the AfD. That is a lie. And I have been making my case, but you're trying to sidestep the issue. The reason my version of the Ossetia article was considered for deletion was that I decided not to wait for the review process because I became impatient. And when I submitted it a second time for review and when you took a look at it recently you cited the AfD. An AfD that didn't even factor anything about the article. Aside from my keep vote, everyone else just said redirect. I'm sure they didn't even read the article. Both articles are well-sourced and I have laid out why both articles should exist. If you're not going to review the articles for their merits and just cite an AfD, then you shouldn't be accepting or declining draft submissions and certainly starting an AfD. "I am saying that we should either have both articles or neither article and that my preference is neither." And if your preference is neither then shouldn't be starting an AfD. You are wasting time your own time by starting this. I can only assume Bad faith from you unfortunately. "Well-sourced non-notable topic". Then I guess Armenia–Saudi Arabia relations and Armenia–Pakistan relations articles could count as such and yet there is notability just as these two articles I've created. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Robert, how about merging the two articles since both articles contain a vast majority of the same information? Both pages can be titled say United States relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The fact that the two articles are mostly the same is a reason to delete or redirect. I note that WCM also said, above, that: 'The Abkhazia article has information that is separate from South Ossetia.' Yes, but not much, and not much substantive content. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This article doesn't strike me as really being about diplomatic relations between Abkhazia and the United States. It's more like a collection of statements made by US figures about the Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, or an expansion of the US section of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which has much of the same content). Rather than discussion of contacts between the US government and the Abkhazian government it's a collection of statements by the US that they won't recognise Abkhazia as a state, US condemnations of actions by other countries who do recognise it as a state, and attempts by the US to mediate the conflict. With that removed there's very little left. Hut 8.5 17:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Per Hut. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:07, 11 June 2021 (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.