- 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. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
South Ossetia–United States relations
- South Ossetia–United States relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
there is no encyclopaedic value to this article as there is no actual relations. The USA does not recognise South Ossetia but neither does the vast majority of countries. Non recognition is covered here International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia [ LibStar ( talk) 15:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I completely agree with the nominator it serves no purpose since the US does not recongize South Ossetia. Jay Jay What did I do? 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There's nothing meaningful to say that's not covered in that more general article (if there was a significant long-running controversy about the US's non-recognition, that might merit a separate article, but there's not). A redirect is appropriate because the article title follows a standard format for international relations articles and hence someone may search for the page, try to guess the URL, or even have an automatic script that generates links to Wikipedia pages. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 12:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I agree with the nominator that a standalone article is wholly inappropriate. However, redirects are cheap and there is useful information at the target making the redirect worthwhile. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian ( talk) 18:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. There are no such relations. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:30, 11 January 2014 (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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
South Ossetia–United States relations
- South Ossetia–United States relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
there is no encyclopaedic value to this article as there is no actual relations. The USA does not recognise South Ossetia but neither does the vast majority of countries. Non recognition is covered here International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia [ LibStar ( talk) 15:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I completely agree with the nominator it serves no purpose since the US does not recongize South Ossetia. Jay Jay What did I do? 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There's nothing meaningful to say that's not covered in that more general article (if there was a significant long-running controversy about the US's non-recognition, that might merit a separate article, but there's not). A redirect is appropriate because the article title follows a standard format for international relations articles and hence someone may search for the page, try to guess the URL, or even have an automatic script that generates links to Wikipedia pages. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 12:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I agree with the nominator that a standalone article is wholly inappropriate. However, redirects are cheap and there is useful information at the target making the redirect worthwhile. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian ( talk) 18:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. There are no such relations. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:30, 11 January 2014 (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.