This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Not merged. Per quasi-unanimous opposition. Pilaz (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution was not adopted as one of the permanent members used its veto. Sakiv (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The veto can't be used under this circumstance. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 18:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we did not know that the resolution is "procedural" and not like previous resolutions that fail when the veto is used. The one who created the article should have paid attention to this point and added it to the content.--Sakiv (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we already have articles about most of the emergency special sessions in UN history. It would make sense to keep that article but not this separate one about the resolution that authorized it. Minh Nguyễn💬 20:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is a notable event in its own right, which made news headlines. The resolution was made at a meeting of the Security Council, a rather dramatic meeting indeed, distinct from the General Assembly meeting it called for. The resolution served to show the increasing isolation of Russia due to its unprovoked attack on a sovereign neighbor. This and other details will no doubt be added over time. This resolution stands on its own as an important event in history, and it should have its own article. — The Transhumanist 23:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - On precedence to the fact we have an article on United Nations Security Council Resolution 119 which authorized the First emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as individual articles for subsequent UNSC resolutions that called for emergency sessions. The notability of such a resolution in the UNSC history and the news it's made worldwide, it seems reasonable to keep the article standalone. Further, a GA resolution is expected in coming days which might be added to the Emergency GA session page. --AXEdits (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that precedent. In that case, I agree with keeping both articles around. Minh Nguyễn💬 22:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - notable in its own right on grounds as mentioned above.Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable in its own right it is, but the content is better presented in one article. Merging does not require that one article be non-notable. As per WP:N: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. -- see WP:PAGEDECIDE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This resolution is passed in Security Council, while the emergency special session is in General Assembly. The emergency special session should be seen as an aftermath of this resolution.--Johnson.Xia (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The two separate articles cover two separate actions.United Nations Security Council Resolution 2623 represents the first and necessary step to convene Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Security Council resolution was passed through only because Russia, the only member to vote no could not veto a procedural resolution. The General Assembly passed the 11th emergency resolution with only five opposes—one from a nation that allowed Russian troops to mass inside its own border and then invade Ukraine across that border. Though the General Assembly resolution has limited practical effect at the moment, it can take further action: the vote clearly establishes Putin's isolation and is a step toward a diplomatic solution. Both resolutions plus the emergency session are important links for Ukraine, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis—though the last needs a title change. The current states of the three articles raised for merger in this discussion are weak but the best, quickest, and simplest path forward is to expand and otherwise improve them separately—there's not much to merge yet. The eleventh emergency resolution article does not even show the text! — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 06:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC) —[reply]
Oppose as most arguments above. I have created an article for United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/2 now, which (I presume!) is also notable in its own right or, if a merge is to be done, should be included in the discussion. Since ES-11/1 had little effect, resulting in ES-11/2, and the 11th Emergency Session is only adjourned, there will probably be more resolutions, so it would probably be better to leave these articles separate, at least until 11 ES closes. Tony Holkham(Talk) 16:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
