Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea

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 no consensus‎. As the nominator isn't satisfied with the sources presented in this AFD, they will not be pleased with this closure but the fact also is after two relistings, they have received no support for the deletion of this article so I see no other outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources cited in the article are about the Russian occupation and annexation of part of Ukraine, none specifically about this document. —Michael Z. 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: ~~Why are we deleting a talk page?~~ — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed; striking above comment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used Twinkle at the wrong location. Please fix or let me know if I failed to clean up any of the fallout. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources cited in the article perhaps, but Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And, there has actually been a good bit of writing about the document as it pertains to Russian law (such as [1], examining the Declaration's treatment of Sevastapol), as well as the implications for international law (such as [2]). The passage of the unilateral declaration of independence itself was covered contemporaneously with its passage (e.g. [3], [4]), so I think WP:GNG is met here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, Can you cite the first one with author-date-title or DOI? The link just returns a login page. Thanks. —Michael Z. 16:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two “covered contemporaneously” sources are literally a mention of the fact that a declaration was made, and padded out with other news. The first is merely regurgitation of the fact from an inaccessible AP article. The second is a single sentence. Not significant coverage.

The Desai and Sidhu article is potentially significant. —Michael Z. 17:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link that should work if you're logged in through WP:TWL. It's "The Case of the City of Sevastopol: Domestic and International Law" from 5 Russ. L.J. (2017). There is also comparative literature involving this UDI (such as comparing it to that of Kosovo) and other literature that analyzes the legality of the UDI itself straight away. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the TWL link.

So the text of Cwicinskaja 2017 mentions the declaration of independence (excluding the abstract and headings). More than a passing mention, but not by much. The existence of a declaration is an important point to its content, but it is by no means about the declaration.

Nikouai and Zamani 2016 mention it a few more times, but the subject is the “secession of Crimea” and one major part of it is the legality of declarations in general. Getting closer, but it is still the same subject as annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, its legal aspects, and not substantially about the document or declaration itself.

I am not yet convinced.

(The “comparing it to that of Kosovo” link also gives me a login page and no info about the source.) —Michael Z. 04:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned through Desai and Sidhu 2014, and it doesn’t seem to actually say anything about the Crimean declaration of independence. —Michael Z. 04:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Red-tailed hawk. The document appears to have legal and historical significance discussed in scholarly sources. I found the international law article particularly convincing that this meets WP:GNG.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk’s sources literally say the declaration doesn’t have legal and historical significance. More importantly for this question, they treat it as a relevant object, and not their subject.

Nikouei and Zamani 2016: “The ICJ’s advisory opinion in the case of Kosovo is progressive in that making a distinction between the legality of a Declaration of Independence and the secession ensuing it makes it easier for a lawyer to divorce an act of secession from the formalities associated with a declaration of independence. Such was the approach taken by this piece towards the legality of secession and deflation of independence in Crimea. Without this approach, the most one could achieve was to point towards the illegality of secession in Crimea without addressing such essential features as the declaration of independence and the legality of the referendum held therein. [. . .] Once again, the wholesome misinterpretation and misuse of self-determination in Crimea does dictate an urgent need for more clarification in this area. ¶ Even though the exercise of secession was underscored by sheer illegality, one must still fear the unwelcome precedent that Crimea may set in the future. For this reason alone, a continuous and substantive engagement with the issues associated with self-determination helps reduce the frightening possibilities that may arise from the political exploits made out of the selective invocation of the right to self-determination.”

Cwicinskaja 2017: “However, regardless of its special status, the city does not have the power in domestic law to declare independence, and its actions were illegal.”

Desai and Sidhu 2014 doesn’t seem to say anything about the declaration. —Michael Z. 04:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as some of the sources are related to the topic, which appears notable. Significant is not the same as notable.

Godtres (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? —Michael Z. 22:56, 7 July 2023 (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.