Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimean speech of Vladimir Putin

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 Keep. Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping this article (although this does not mean that a merger is impossible). At least one delete !vote gives rationale more in line with a merge !vote, and another delete !vote is not being considered as AFD is not for cleanup. Of the keep !votes considered (i.e. not simply "it's notable"), several emphasise the NYT's lengthy article on the subject (which would speak for notability), either explicitly or implicitly. Another mentioned that Obama has responded to this speech, which points towards greater notability.

Again, this does not mean a merge is impossible, and if a merger is desired discussion can continue at the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean speech of Vladimir Putin

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

Not notable, difficult to read, largely based on a single primary source, and an orphan. The contents of this speech can be adequately summarized in articles like Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation and 2014 Crimean crisis. There just isn't a need for a separate article just for Putin's speech. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a highly notable speech and shortcomings in the current version of the article are not legitimate reasons for deletion. The New York Times published a 32 paragraph article about the speech, called Putin Reclaims Crimea for Russia and Bitterly Denounces the West, involving contributions by ten reporters. They hosted the entire speech on their website. Dozens or hundreds of reliable news sources world wide gave this speech in-depth attention, and I am certain that when history books about the Crimean crisis are written, this speech will be a major focus of that coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why make a separate article for the speech when it can be put as a section within the Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation page? Limestoneforest (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The reason why we should keep this article, Limestoneforest, is that the speech itself is independently notable, because of significant coverage of the speech by reliable, independent sources. Consider this: we have 45 articles about State of the Union addresses by U.S. presidents. We have 18 articles about speeches by Barack Obama, and I was the major contributor to one of those articles. We have many articles about notable speeches by many world leaders. Why shouldn't we also have an article about a highly notable speech by the current president of Russia? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside from the standard OTHERSTUFFEXIST rebuttal, I'm unconvinced that just because the speech has received significant coverage (however that is defined) it deserves a separate Wikipedia page. For example you could argue that a speech by Barack Obama to the Clinton Global Initiative received significant coverage but that speech is a sub-section of the "Speeches of Barack Obama" page. A much better reason to create a separate page for Putin's speech is if it is too cumbersome to describe the events of Putin's speech (and not just the content of Putin's speech) within the [[Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation|accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation Wikipage, but the problem then is that it is too early to describe the totality of everything that has happened in the aftermath of Putin's speech given its recentism. Moreover, even if we do have a picture of the totality of everything that has happened, it is unclear why we cannot just sum up everything that has happened as a sub-section of the "accession" article. I'm not against having his speech as a separate Wikipedia page, but at this point, it is too early for it to warrant having a separate Wikipedia page.Limestoneforest (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The other stuff exists essay is a double edged sword, Limestoneforest. Experienced editors certainly agree that we should not keep a new crappy article about a non-notable topic just because someone manages to find other similar crappy articles about non-notable topics among our 4.4 million articles. Instead, we should delete all of those articles. But in the case of this specific topic - a speech by the president of a major world power which has received significant coverage, when we have many such well-referenced, in depth articles about such notable speeches, then otherstuffexists is an argument in favor of keeping this article. And as for what "significant coverage" is, who would be bold enough to argue that 32 paragraphs in the New York Times devoted to this speech as a specific topic, as well as a superabundance of similar coverage in reliable sources worldwide, does not constitute significant coverage? As for "recentism", that is intended to screen out trivial topics of fleeting interest. It should be clear to anyone who understands the basics of international affairs that the Crimean crisis is of enduring historical interest, and should be addressed by a body of quite a few linked and interrelated articles here on Wikipedia. In my judgment, an article about this speech should be among them, as students of this crisis in the future will most certainly be interested in this specific speech. By the way, I encourage you to write a freestanding article about Obama's 2012 speech to the Clinton Global Initiative if it received coverage comparable to this speech. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - ReplyBut you still haven't established why Putin's speech should warrant an separate Wikipedia page. I'm not denying that the speech is significant, but in order to have an independent Wikipedia page for the speech, you'd have to establish the independent significance of the speech and not just its significance. That is difficult to do since the content of Putin's speech is, in essence, a justification of Crimea's accession into the Russian Federation and thus means that the significance of Putin's speech is dependent on the significance of event (Crimea's accession into the Russian federation) that motivated Putin's speech. Even if I grant you your requirement of 'independent notability' (which is whether the main subject of the Wikipedia page has significant coverage by reliable, independent sources), those sources should, at a minimum, make explicitly clear what it is about the notability of the historical event/person that warrants in-depth coverage and based on what I've read, the only thing that is notable about it is that it provided a justification from Crimea's accession into the Russian federation...which begs the question why his speech can't just be included a a sub-section of the Crimea accession Wikipedia page. In addition to the significance issue, there is the issue of the written material of the current article. As it stands, a vast majority of the article is a summary of Putin's speech when (and as user Yulia Romero points out) it isn't clear why it shouldn't just be treated as a Wikisource document. Moreover, given the underdeveloped section of the article documenting the response of Putin's Crimea speech, perhaps you are over-stating the significance of his speech.Limestoneforest (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speech on Crimea has been covered in quite a few news sources. Most notably, Obama gave a speech in part rebuking some of the points made by Putin in this speech [1]. I don't think that straight out deletion is desirable. I would suggest either merging the page, or if enough sources can be found renaming it to something like Statements of Vladimir Putin on the Crimean Crisis .Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed -- as I noted, it seems easy enough to summarize the salient points of this speech in the myriad other articles on this ongoing situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge; I definitely don't think it should be deleted. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't see a relevant deletion rationale. -- Director (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article is now just an almost complete overview of what was said without much background. In its current form it belongs more in Wikisource. More summarizing of what was said needs to be done to make it look like a proper Wikipedia article rather then a primary source. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The speech was notable, it was a major speech that detailed new policies, and significantly more broad and important than GW Bush's "Chicken Kiev Speech" which has its own page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech. Needing to be improved is not a reason to delete and entry. The entry probably could use some context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnifiedLeft (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Frankly, while there are a couple exceptions, too much of the discussion here entirely avoids making signficant policy-based arguments. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any indication that this speech is independently notable enough to justify an article separate from Vladimir Putin or the Crimean Crisis. Orser67 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep article, as the content seems notable. But it should be improved though.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen, et al. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that we have newspaper stories which say "Putin made a speech" does not constitute "significant coverage" and hence the article fails to meet notability guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as was a notable speech. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep, Preferably Merge into Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation or 2014 Crimean Crisis - notability is obvious, and I really think the subject itself is worth being kept - but is this one particular address made by Putin worthy enough of an entire article? Should we then also retain articles on each speech that every national leader has made, each address that say, Obama or Angela Merkel have given (because surely there are many of those that gain almost equal coverage in corresponding media outlets)? Either way, to me, a merge seems like the most reasonable option - the ideas would be more fit as a section of an article about the topic Putin was discussing. If these options are not possible, then keep. Flipandflopped (talk) 23:45, 11 April 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.