List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria : And we don't really need a list for two wars.  Unnecessary article.  Not every country needs a list like this.  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia .  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The CHRI did not end in 2000 nor in 2009.  It's government and armed forces continues to exist abroad (in exile), which is supported by RS.  It's armed forces are participating in the Russian-Ukrainian war on the side of Ukraine.  I mean, even the infobox for the Russo-Ukrainian war has it listed as one of the main belligerents, and it's pretty well sourced, here .  And it's been like this for months apparently.  If it doesn't deserve an article simply because of the lack of conflicts, then other articles should be held to the same regard.  Such as this one , or this one , or even this one .  Ola Tønningsberg ( talk ) 19:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All those lists seem to fall outside of WP:NLIST as I understand it.  The wars are notable individually, but not together.  Which RSs are writing on the wars those countries participate in as a group enough that it has become notable?  JM2023 ( talk ) 02:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, the CHRI may or may not have "ended", but it is no longer a state by either theory, declarative or constitutive.  It is not recognized by any state and it has no territory.  So is it logical to list the Russo-Ukrainian War as having the involvement of the CHRI?  JM2023 ( talk ) 02:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Concern This article was nominated for deletion less than 6 hours after it was started .  There was no discussion first at Talk:List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria .  Nobody reached out to the article's creator at User talk:Ola Tønningsberg .  No tags were added to the article noting problems.  Whatever issues this article may have, this process just seems wrong.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is a partially recognized state, and organizations representing it have fought under the Ukrainian flag for nine years now.  Whether that constitutes being a belligerent for the purposes of the list is an article-content and policy/consistency question that would have been better discussed at talk or at WikiProject Milhist, rather than being introduced as a claim in an AFD.   — Michael Z .  18:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, it is not recognized by any state.  Mellk ( talk ) 18:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It met the declarative theory of statehood when the Russian Federation signed a peace treaty with it.  It met the constitutive theory when Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada voted to recognize it as an occupied state.   — Michael Z .  03:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Ukrainian parliament voted to recognize it as "temporarily occupied" (whatever that means).  A separate bill for recognition of independence was not yet considered.  Mellk ( talk ) 03:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So recognizing it as temporarily occupied is some kind of recognition but not not partial recognition?  I can’t quite reconcile that grammatically nor factually.  It is something.   — Michael Z .  13:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So this is just your original research then.  Mellk ( talk ) 17:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The question mark indicated that I was asking you if that’s your opinion, or just your original research then.   — Michael Z .  21:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See [1] You mentioned declaratory and constitutive theories, which do not appear to be supported by RS.  Mellk ( talk ) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well Meduza’s anonymous news post integrally acknowledges that its view on this is not universally held.  Other sources disagree.  [2] So its non-recognition doesn’t appear to be an established fact in RS consensus.  Have you read the Rada’s declaration?  It clearly recognizes the existence of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and its territory, as well as its agreement with the Russian Federation (denounced by the RF).  It doesn’t explicitly make a declaration about its sovereignty or independence, but clearly acknowledges their existence when it respectfully refers to CRI declarations of sovereignty and independence.   — Michael Z .  02:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ukraine has not recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria .  "As of 18 October 2022, the decision of the Verkhovna Rada to recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as temporarily occupied by Russia awaits the signature of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy .... In early November, Zelenskyy responded to the Verkhovna Rada's vote and a petition with 25,000 signatures by ordering the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to research if, how, and in which form Ukraine could recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He emphasized that it was the Ukrainian President's prerogative to extend full diplomatic recognition to other states."  Therefore the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria does not fall under the constitutive theory.  It no longer falls under the declarative theory, since it had lost all of its defined territory, permanent population, and effective government in the Second Chechen War .  JM2023 ( talk ) 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So you’re saying it did have sovereignty according to the declarative theory, presumably until some time between 2000 and 2009.  (I believe it has a defined territory and permanent population, as they have not disappeared; but what it has lost is effective control over them.)  — Michael Z .  02:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The CHRI was definitely a de facto independent state (i.e., declarative theory conditions met) between 1991 and 2000 (from c. the dissolution of the USSR to c. the 1999-2000 Battle of Grozny ), and is (and ought to be) universally regarded as such by RS.  However, without effective government control, it no longer meets those conditions.  Regardless, that has no bearing on its (lack of) recognition by Ukraine.  JM2023 ( talk ) 03:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its de-facto recognition in Ukrainian law.   — Michael Z .  16:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any sources or reasoning behind that?  As far as I can tell, " Zelenskyy responded to the Verkhovna Rada's vote and a petition with 25,000 signatures by ordering the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to research if, how, and in which form Ukraine could recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He emphasized that it was the Ukrainian President's prerogative to extend full diplomatic recognition to other states. " i.e., no recognition.  I don't know what "de facto recognition" is, but recognition is the prerogative of Zelenskyy, not the Rada, and as of yet Zelenskyy has not recognized the CHRI.  Maybe if you could define "de facto recognition" (e.g., a case similar to countries having unofficial relations with Taiwan, a state that meets the declarative theory conditions anyway).  And regardless, the very lead of the CHRI article says this: "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria [...] was a de facto state that controlled most of the former Checheno-Ingush ASSR . [...] Since the 2000s, several entities have claimed [emphasis mine] to be an exile government of Ichkeria."  Its description in the wiki search says "former unrecognized country".  Enwiki itself makes it clear this was a state that no longer exists.  JM2023 ( talk ) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  22:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Minor points -- 1: A. B. 's point above was valid when written under WP:RUSH and, arguably, remains valid.  2: There is still no discussion on the Talk as recommended by WP:BEFORE C3.  Along with RUSH, this is another possible indication of WP:OZD in this good-faith nomination.  Major objections -- 3: No policy rationale has been presented by the nominator or ! voters.  Unnecessary article.  Not every country needs a list like this falls squarely under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is refuted (lacking other rationale) by WP:NOTPAPER (see WP:NOTHING essay).  4: If there are policy- or guideline-based reasons to delete this article, I don't see them.  It's sourced and informative, and wars are generally considered a free pass for WP:GNG .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NLIST , as while the individual wars are notable, the set "wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" is not notable.  Additionally, the article solely consists of a minimal lead and a list, and the list only has 3 items in it with minimal text within each list item.  It would have a maximum of 4 items if one adds the War in Dagestan , and the addition of the Russo-Ukrainian War is contested already (are there even any RS for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria still existing even on paper?).  JM2023 ( talk ) 02:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, TonyBallioni ( talk ) 23:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It's sourced, and whether the government is recognised or not doesn't effect the notability of the government and the wars it has participated in.  Newystats ( talk ) 05:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not a real country.  Seems to be serving as WP:SOAPBOX for separatists.  NavjotSR ( talk ) 16:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which editors do you imagine are Russian separatists?   — Michael Z .  17:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, dear.  Please, let's not go there.  I'm sure no offence was intended.  NavjotSR , would you be amenable to striking the last two words of your good-faith comment, please?  Just out of an abundance of WP:CIVIL ?  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m not offended, but it’s just a dramatic comment in the form of a criticism against an undefined group, that seems to have no relation to any guidelines or rationale.  I’d like to give the commenter an opportunity to let us know if there’s really anything to it.   — Michael Z .  17:47, 1 September 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus