Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Too short, there is no need to create a separate article for an eventual content that could be included in other already existing ones (e.g. Hungarian Revolution of 1848‎). The only reference is a Hungarian book and the article creator does not seem to be intereseted in the article any more(Iaaasi (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep I can appreciate the nominator's frustration on this type of article, and I agree that the article creator does not seem to have taken much of an interest in it. On the other hand, the killings in "Magyar Transylvania", a section of Romania with a predominantly Hungarian population, are a matter of record., , ; and I would not have been aware of that chapter of history, but for the stub article and the nomination.  Though I dislike stub articles, which could be informative with a few additional minutes of work, this would be WP:EVENT notable and a stub is acceptable for now.  Mandsford 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note "a section of Romania with a predominantly Hungarian population" - that is false, Romanians were the majority in Transylvania (60% Romanians, 25% Hungarians in 1850) and it was a part of the Habsburg Empire in 1848, not of Romania. I don't see how you link are relevant here:
 * - link 1 is about the massacre of jews
 * - link 2 is about the Hungarian revolution of 1848 in general, and the word masacre is not related to the event in the book
 * - you did not show me a record of ethnic cleansing by Rom. against Hun.
 * Mandsford, your search is made with the words being indepedent. If you try 1848 "massacres in Transylvania" there are 0 results](Iaaasi (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Try this one instead, referring to an extermination of the Magyar population in Transylvania, particularly in towns such as Nagyenyed (Aiud), Zalathna, Abrudbanya (Abrud), Korosbany (Baia de Criş, and Brad. The first link didn't come out as intended.  And please don't start tossing words like "false" around either-- nobody is saying that Transylvania itself had a Hungarian majority.  As to what was colloquially described as "Magyar Transylvania" (as opposed to "all of Transylvania"), Magyar is the Hungarian language term for Hungarian people.  Mandsford 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Keep (ec) The most important event of the 1848–1849 conflict was massacre at Aiud/Nagyenyed (8-9 January 1849), see Modern Hungarian society in the making: the unfinished experience, p. 102, The cultural aspirations of Hungary from 1896 to 1935, p. 180. A History of the Roumanians, p. 284. See also History derailed: Central and Eastern Europe in the long nineteenth century, p. 112 (massacre of Zlatna/Zalatna(i) - I assume that The British quarterly review, Volume 13, p. 30-31 refers to the same event). All the books/studies documenting the events are available at G-Books and it is just a part of what I found. The article needs responsible and neutral editing (the description of the situation, explanation of the historical background of the conflict based on reliable sources, etc.). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the book you are talking about is it written about a single massacre not about massacres, so the title would be anyway incorrect. All the sources are talking about a single event, the Nagyened massacre, and the only thing that can be said about it is that 600 Hungarians were killed. Is it really neccessary to create a separate article for this sentence? (Iaaasi (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC))
 * In my previous comment I refered to the events/massacres in Nagyened and Zalatna and I presented more evidence to support my claims, not a single book. Please, read my comment again and check the literature on G-Books. Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary, Volume 1, p. 53 covers massacre in Abrudbanya, and History of the War in Hungary in 1848 and 1849 (Otto von Wenkstern, p. 156-159) contains broader information on the conflict (events in Korosbany, Brad and the previously mentioned towns of Nagyened, Zalatna and Abrudbanya). The book is linked above by Mandsford. [4]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per editor(Iaaasi). Just to add, Mandsford, please check you data, there are endless data which point to the population of Transylvania where the Romanians always represented the majority. You probably mixed the ruling people with the population. If Transylvania was ruled by Hungarians for a long time this doesn`t mean that there also live a dominant Hungarian population. About this massacre, since there is so little information in this article this could be easily added to the Hungarian Revolution of 1848‎ article. Adrian (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Adrian, we call the articles containing "so little information" stubs and they're perfectly legitimate, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, but should we have a stub like this? I mean, if we follow this instructions blindly (for stubs) we could have more stubs than normal articles. With that logic, I could tare a part an article and to create 100 stubs, just because I could do that doesn`t mean I should. What I am suggesting is to delete this article and to add this info to the already existing article (Hungarian Revolution of 1848) - since there is already a normal article where this info is suitable. Adrian (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is: Is there enough material in the reliable sources to compile a stand alone article? I think there is sufficient information in the sources presented. Merging to Hungarian Revolution of 1848 could be an option, and Hungarians_in_Transylvania is another suitable place for the information, however, the stand alone article could provide a more detailed information about the context of the complicated situation in the region. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Somewhere in all the condescending lectures about the demographics of Transylvania and what percentage was Hungarian and what percentage was Romanian, the point is that civilians were being massacred in the course of a revolution.  I'm not sure what's not notable about 600 people being murdered.  Mandsford 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is data for this article, (not like this - an article which consists of one sentence), of course it would be nice to be a separate article, but in this form, I think it should be added to some other , suitable article. Adrian (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if the shortness of the article was a valid reason for deletion (which, of course, it is not), the expansion based on reliable sources has fixed that problem. I think it needs to be made clear that the nominator has just returned from an indefinite block for pushing pro-Romanian and anti-Hungarian points of view, and the other editor supporting deletion has similar "previous", so any of their comments here need close scrutiny for accuracy. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that Vejvancicky 's additions to the article are great. As noted, if the subject is notable, then minimal content is not at all a reason to delete.  It's preferable, of course, if the person creating an article takes the time to make it informative, rather than leaving that for other persons.  Mandsford 00:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Retention of stubs is important, serving to stimulate contributions when someone interested finds the start of coverage. "Begun is half done" is not a meaningless proverb. The history of ethnic, religious and other massacres in 19th century Europe is important to an understanding of the background to the rise of nationalism and in particular the brutal events of the 20th century such as the Nazi Holocaust and the genocidal Bosnian war.  Vejvancicky has expanded this article in a way that confirms why it should not have been considered for deletion. AfDs should be screened by people who know what they're doing. Opbeith (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some additional information given at a YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/HorthyVere - YouTube user provides summaries of 1848-1849 massacres and also provides reference sources. And yes, YouTube arguments, blah-blah, but information is to be judged by its substance and verifiability as well as by its location. Opbeith (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - on the one hand, the massacres are probably deserving of mention. On the other hand, this article completely puts the cart before the horse: we have no article on the Transylvanian Revolution of 1848, so the content here is completely devoid of context. Create that article, at a minimum using Keith Hitchins' 1994 book and Katherine Verdery's 1983 one, and fit the massacres into their proper place. Otherwise, it makes little sense. - Biruitorul Talk 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If such a tragedy would occur today, there would be an article about it in minutes without any AfD consideration. I agree with Biruitorul that historical context should be added, or when other related articles are created, the content could be merged at that time. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.