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)reply
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)reply
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?
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.
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)reply
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)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.
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)reply
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)reply
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?
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.
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)reply
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)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.