Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Crimea (country)

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 Speedy Keep. This is the third AfD (see here and here) for this article (or its equivalent) in less than a week. Our deletion policy states that a "reasonable amount of time" should pass between deletion nominations, and 4 days is far from reasonable. There is an RfC in progress at the Republic of Crimea talk page if anyone wishes to weigh in on the fate of this article. This AfD is subverting that process. -- Atama頭 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Crimea (country)[edit]

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

Textbook WP:CFORK. The very lead of the article says it all, emphasis mine: "The country was established for a little more than a day as a result of the 2014 Crimean referendum, before it was joined to Russia as one of its republics." The whole article is either copied over or already covered from Crimea, Republic of Crimea and 2014 Crimean referendum. This is the meta:Separatism taken at the extreme. No such user (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Historically interesting and important article. LordFixit (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a good faith creation but this is just a technical byproduct of the (disputed) process of transferring from one country to another. These oddities have happened all the time throughout history and aren't notable in and of themselves. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This country still exists, it has not yet been annexed by russia as the treaty has not been ratified by the russian duma yet. Your statement that the country existed for little more than a day is blatently false.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the Ukrainian view, the country does not exist as a matter of law. According to the Russian view — as declared by Vladimir Putin — the annexation was effective as soon as he and the Crimean/Sevastopolitan (is that the right adjective form?) leaders signed the accession treaty. In neither of these views did the allegedly independent state exist for more than a day. --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Crimea. There is no reason to keep it as a separate article. (I would have agreed with "delete" but for the fact that we had a discussion previously that ended up in "keep".) --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell knows which article was actually kept at AfD. This whole Crimea business ended up as a bloody mess, with every involved Wikipedian having their own idea how to organize articles. In particular, this (for a suitable interpretation of "this") was moved by @Kudzu1: [1] from "Republic of Crimea" to "Republic of Crimea (country)" on 18 March and immediately [2] restored some version on the old location, in effect creating a copy/paste move. No such user (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Action We alright have an RFC at Talk:Republic_of_Crimea#Proposal_to_merge_article_titled_.22Republic_of_Crimea_.28country.29.22_into_this_article, this AFD is redundant to that RFC. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as above - ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. Any country has historical significance regardless for how long it existed. --Truther2012 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as above. Trackteur (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reason as we have all of the other short lived states here: List of shortest-lived sovereign states, many of which were just temporary byproducts of political technicalities. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, same as above. It is real sovereing state, not another Sealand. mrl586 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The proclaimed entity declared to be sovereign independent state. The article "Republic of Crimea" is about a de facto Russian sub-national autonomous region which is a completely entity to this article. Tthe Proclaimed Independent Sovereign State and the de facto Autonomous Russian Republic are two different entities which have existed at two different points in history, hence why there should be two different articles for two different entities which have existed at two different periods of time. Also this subject is more than notable enough to warrant an article of it's own. IJA (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real, historical, more or less independent nation, even if it only existed for one single day. JIP | Talk 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real independent country, what's not to like 130.126.255.231 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Crimea. There is no reason for having two articles on the same entity. Whether it is an independent nation or a constituent part of the Russian Federation or a dissenting part of Ukraine, it is one place, there is one government using this name, and we only need one article. At present the two articles lead to divergent explanations of the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per excellent argument by John Pack Lambert. We simply don't need content forks because some people fail to recognize a single place as a singleton entity despite name and POV about its political status. The Russian Federation is conquering a large portion of a neighboring sovereign state by force, and people here are fantasizing some nonsense about an independent state existing for one day. This is really pathetic. jni ^(delete)_{…just not interested} 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge per above arguments by John Pack Lambert. We do not need more content forks. This "state" was only declared for the purposes of accession to Russia as the Republic of Crimea, and hence can be easily dealt with in that article. What's more, the present title of this article is ridiculous for the sake of disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to avoid content forks. — Petr Matas 22:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A sovereign state that managed to get recognition in one day. We have plenty of articles on short-lived former states; this one should stay. [Soffredo] 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Crimean Regional Government shows why these areticles should be merged. There we have a join article on both a Crimean regime that existed under German auspices and one n a Crimean regime that existed under Anglo-Frnaco-American auspices. That is a much more radicalchange all put in one than anything we are talking about here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no distinction between Republic of Crimea and this article since the annexation vote by Russia was nearly automatic. Any information from this article could be discussed in other articles.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys, we already have the RFC, which predates this AFD, who's purpose is to discuss weather or not to merge this. If you think this should or shouldn't be merged take it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the content is duplicate of Republic of Crimea. No need to keep this fork Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is helpful to readers to keep this separate from the Ukrainian entity that preceded it and the Russian entity which succeeded it. St Anselm (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the one who created this article, I'm amused by the characterization of this as a "content fork", considering my personal views on Ukraine and Russia. If my vote counts, I want to keep this because I think it's historically significant and Wikipedia has catalogued many other short-lived and pseudo-states -- and this fits into the category. I'm open to the idea of narrowly tailoring the content of this article, as there's plenty of general Crimea information between the other three articles out there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AfD ended only 4 days ago at least a week should go by before another deletion discussion takes place. As for the keep, this article passes WP:GNG has the widespread coverage and should stay. There have been lots of short lived republics in history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Republic of Crimea. This page tells: "The country was established for a little more than a day as a result of the 2014 Crimean referendum, before it was joined to Russia as one of its republics.". However, 2014 Crimean referendum did not even include a question/option to establish independent state: Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation? and Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine? This POV fork is ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Truther2012 says, "Any country has historical significance regardless for how long it existed." I suppose an argument for deletion could be made if a hypothetical country were to fail WP:GNG requirements, but that isn't the case here.LM2000 (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For a country to have a historical significance, it must first exist in first place. Crimea is current a division of Ukraine. Only Russia and maybe some of its puppet states (and certain slovophile wikipedia editors) recognize this as an sovereign state. This is just a pure POV-fork. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 08:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized or not, it existed. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did not exist as an independent state per vast majority of sources. 16:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Unilaterally declared (though mostly unrecognised) sovereign state. Historically significant as part of Ukraine's de facto loss of Crimea. Notably, the claimed country is not coterminous with the subsequent de facto republic of the Russian Federation, nor the internationally recognised autonomous republic of Ukraine. Other short-lived states have articles. Similar historical entities also have articles, as a claim of sovereignty, when matching the de facto situation, is significant. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Crimea. Although the territorial dispute is still unresolved, it is without question that these two articles are covering the same subject. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if we are to keep Wikipedia consistent and follow the examples of:

Republic of Galicia (lasted a few hours)
Carpatho-Ukraine (likely less than 1 day)
Russian Democratic Federative Republic (a few hours at most)

- Anonimski (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental difference between this one and those that you've listed. This one remains fundamentally intact as it entered into a federation. Those states ceased to exist. There is no reason to separate the history of the two, as they are fundamentally the same entity doing the same thing, even if Sebastopol was later spit off. RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. For example, the application of Russian federal law to the territory is a large change in the general characteristics of the administration. Anonimski (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no time for "Crimean law" to develop for the couple of days it was "independent". It is not a large change at all. The main change was moving from Ukrainian to Russian administration. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, the declaration of independence, although mostly unrecognised, was widely reported in the press, therefore it's notable. Secondly, there is no minimum duration for which a country has existed to keep its own article. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one can create article Declaration of Crimean independence. However, declaration per se (declared by their parliament occupied by Russian military forces) does not mean it actually existed as an independent state. Most sources, to my knowledge, claim that it never was an independent state. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, as said above, especially what Truther2012 said. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2014 (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.