Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic states and the Soviet Union


 * 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. As noted by several contributors, disagreeing with the content of an article is not a valid argument for deletion, and all arguments to that effect are discounted. If the content is deficient, please fix it by improving the article. AfD is not a forum for settling disputes about how Soviet or Baltic history should be presented in Wikipedia.  Sandstein  18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Baltic states and the Soviet Union

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

(1) The article was started last night by merely copying and pasting part of the text of the article Occupation of the Baltic States, in an attempted move done without consensus (and concurrent with the re-titling of the latter article). (2) Most importantly, an article purporting to start on the history of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union that oddly begins 4 years after the official 1940 annexations of the Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR and Latvian SSR by the Soviet Union makes absolutely zero sense. Both from a historical perspective and from the imposition of an artificial temporal partitiion. (3) Moreover, the title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" would be highly inaccurate even if no invasion occurred: the Baltic States and the Soviet Union existed as separate entities for nearly two decades (1922-1939, before the beginnings of the Soviet invasion), and were also separated during the 1941-1944 German occupation, yet that's not in this article titled "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union", which clearly does not cover the topic purported by its title. This would be akin to starting an article titled "France and Germany", and beginning in 1943 without including any mention of the decades of pre-1943 relations between the countries (or even World War II from 1940-1942). (4) In an I would assume unintended (but amusing) POV twist, the first line of the article cites Dado Muriyev: "In 1944 the Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the Baltic Offensive in 1944, a twofold military-political operation designed to rout Nazi German forces and liberate "the Soviet Baltic peoples". (5) In fact, the basis for the invasion, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not mentioned a single time in non-footnote text. (6) Indeed, even the official 1940 forced annexation following the Red Army invasion and parliament replacements have been left out of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union article. The only mention is the re-invasion in 1944, which begins 5 years after the Baltic States and Soviet Union began military interactions (1939 Red Army actions) and 4 years after their annexation by the Soviet Union. (7) The reason for this historical disconnect and effectively nonsensical temporal partitiioning is that it is essentially a partial copy and paste job from Occupation of the Baltic States, which included the entire history of the 1940 annexation of the Baltic SSRs and beyond. This is why that material was contained in one article -- the events are inseparable both legally and effectively factually. Picking up 4 years later makes absolutely zero sense. (8) Consensus should have been achieved before such a major move was attempted.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending conclusion of larger issues currently under discussion. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per WP:Speedy keep reason 2.2 "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption" and 2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." John Carter (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per John Carter. This is a split from the article Occupation of the Baltic states which is aimed to present the Soviet and Nazi occupations of the Baltic states as something equal. These both occupations were different, unrelated and both deserve its own article. Besides this the title Baltic states and the Soviet Union is more neutral since the status of the states after WWII until the dissolution of the USSR was disputed. We clearly need an article solely on this political controversy, without comparing with the Nazi occupation.--Dojarca (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on grounds of scope. The original article covered a 60-year period that included WWII events in three states. There were very complex, shifting battles and alliances with their extremely powerful neighbors during the war. If the split articles were expanded, as they definitely could be, they would exceed comfortable reading/editing limits. A fair amount of overlap could be kept. Novickas (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per User:John Carter. Additionally, it is an NPOV title. It needs to be noted that the Annexation/Incorporation/Occupation of these countries is a disputed piece of history, and there are a multitude of opinions for and against in relation to the annexation/incorporation/occupation. By keep it at the title at this AfD, it is neutral, and doesn't purport to take one side in the debate or not. The rest is a matter for cleanup and expansion. Russavia Dialogue 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A fork with no current or foreseen purpose. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, the repeatedly stated purpose of the article, of which the above editor is aware, is that the prior article was both overlong and in rather poor shape. There had been considerable discussion of that purpose, and, considering the above editor took part in that discussion, I assumed he actually was paying attention to what was being said. Evidently, I am wrong in that. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, the repeatedly proposed split has not reached any consensus on the talk page of Occupation of Baltic states --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - True. However, there is more than just cause to believe consensus is not required when one is dealing with what could reasonably be seen as a blatant violation of NPOV, and it had been stated by more than one party that even the previous title made it clear that the article was far from in adherence with that most basic of wikipedia policies. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject of this article is totally unclear. One would think this is an article about international relations between the Soviet Union and Baltic States before the annexation in 1939.Biophys (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Vagueness of topic is rarely if ever grounds for deletion, unless the subject is far too vague for there to ever be a reasonable article. It should also be noted that the article is one of a set including Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. Given the fact that more than one article already exists dealing with this subject, I have every reason to believe that it will be fairly easy to work out what content goes into which article, and how the articles should be named. Also, as the above editor seems to be primarily objecting to the article's title, it would be fairly easy to suggest alternative titles. I cannot see how it makes more sense to propose deletion than to try to change the title to make the subject a bit clearer. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created in such hurry that even title is ridiculous. Since this is basically "copy and paste", it would be better to delete to allow people calm down, and then perhaps create something different on a more meaningful subject. My point was not the title but the subject.Biophys (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have proposed the easy solution elsewhere, which includes returning the occupation article to events of the original scope of time. PetersV     TALK 14:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Aforementioned arguments of Russavia and John Carter are persuasive. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What-a-Mess .--Termer (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After recent edits the article has become an umbrella article covering the Estonia–Russia relations&Latvia–Russia relations&Lithuania–Russia relations during the era of Soviet Union. Things make much more sense now and I don't see any problems Keeping it.--Termer (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just so we're clear for the benefit of others, that is that this article is now regarding Baltic-Soviet relations for their duration, starting with inception with Bolshevist Russia (which, I may add, the Baltic States were the first to recognize de jure). PetersV     TALK 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Peltimikko (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, according to nominator's arguments 1-3 and 5-8. (I can not support argument 4 at this time, because I do not understand its full relevance.)  I would also point out that the article's scope is unclear as it potentially spans almost a century timewise and many different forms of relations widthwise.  Finally, I'm taking this chance to commend Mosedschurte for excellent presentation of his arguments.  All AFD nominators would do best to emulate this approach. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Soviet Union or to something similar article. Several points:
 * in principle article should cover Baltic states occupation and annexation topic in post WWII time, rather clear and relatively narrow scope. However the title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" already implies very broad scope of article starting from dams construction projects ending with daily life of people, topics, which has almost nothing to do with occupation and annexation questions.
 * at this point this article is the fork of Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II, made after controversial and on sided actions on behalf of one involved party.
 * if editors will find a time and write a proper article reflecting the name "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" redirect always can be converted to article's name. M.K. (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Undo, i.e. Delete this travesty per points #1 and #2 raised by Mosedschurte. -- Miacek (t) 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the subject is worth an article of it's own, the "occupation"-article is still alive on it's own. I can't see what the problem is. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT ON WHY MANY OF THE PROBLEMS NO LONGER EXIST The reason that many of the problem(s) are no longer apparent in Baltic states and the Soviet Union is that I edited the article yesterday to reflect it's title -- i.e., "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" from the 1920s to 1991 -- as well as putting it in chron order, adding see tags to articles where duped text existed, etc.
 * Very well and cheers on that. Being WP:BOLD is a preferred WP method of conflict solving. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Before, according to the article's creator when he split off parts of Occupation of the Baltic States to create the article, "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" purported to address only post-1944 issues, despite its title. It also did so in duplication with the main longstanding article on the topic, Occupation of the Baltic States. The same editor also had changed the title of that article to "Occupation of the Baltic States in World War II", and then protected his own change (he's an admin) setting of a firestorm of protest yesterday.


 * I don't wish to engage in recriminations, accusations, et. al. about that move here. I don't believe that it was done in bad faith. The other article's name change remains today after another admin froze all changes to the article to stop edit warring that followed.


 * For the record, I think it should still be deleted, but if it remained, it does serve a purpose now as the primary article regarding the rather extensive 1920s to mid-1930s relations. However, those provisions also exist in Occupation of the Baltic States, and there was never, in actuality, any need for a split in the first place.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Solves part of a very complicated POV issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. An informative page with a reasonably neutral title. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * comment The opposition to this article-- and the related discussions--seems to be political. One side of it says that the occupation of these countries by the Russians and by the Germans was similar and part of the fundamentally same process, and the other says that it was sufficiently distinct to be appropriate for separate articles. Now, obviously they were historically connected, but so was much else. I see it schematically as whether the occupation by the soviets in 1940-1 is to be associated with the Nazi occupation of 41-44, or the later soviet incorporation of 44- 91. Perhaps there should be three articles, not just two, DGG (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It was a continuum of occupying regimes, each using the others' atrocities for their propaganda. There was no period of non-occupation. It is about the Soviet occupation and the SSRs, interrupted by the Nazi invasion and occupation (and their own act of annexation). There are detailed articles on the individual countries and occupations, the one article, now two, regarding the Baltic States are the parent article, so no need to split further here. There is no Baltic-Nazi relations issue as Germany does not maintain it liberated the Baltics from the Soviets (although it certainly felt that way to those that had lived through a year of Soviet occupation). PetersV     TALK 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the first two comments on the very top. Deletion is not the be used as a way of dispute resolution. (Try WP:MRFD until the split has consensus.- Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Occupations of whole countries are notable enough to have their own article AND a parent article covering all of them together for a given country. Seems there should be 3 articles: one overall, one for soviet occupation, one for Nazi occupation. Daughter articles that can be expanded to cover a subject in depth are not content forks (even if they start out as a copy/paste).Yob<b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The hierarchy is 1 x occupation Baltics -> 3 x occupation by individual country -> 6 x occupation by individual country by separate powers (3 countries x 2 powers) PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether the Soviet fabrication of history (no occupation) or not tale of history, there is nothing that occurs at the end of WWII that changes the nature of the Soviet presence from 1940 onwards. The split as originally created contended there was, i.e., occupation until end of WWII and open to genuine interpretation after WWII. That split was totally inappropriate--the only thing the facts and Soviet propaganda agree on--hence the impetus for the deletion nomination here. Subsequent editing to make the article about the ENTIRE Baltic-Soviet relationship outside the EVENTS of the occupation have improved circumstances, however, the editor creating the split has, as far as I can tell, not embraced that WP:BOLD rearrangement (which returns the original occupation article to span 1940 to 1991, Soviet, Nazi, and Soviet (re-) occupation). PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 14:44, 7 May 2009 (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.