Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIGH MIDDLE AGE OF CZECH LAND


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

HIGH MIDDLE AGE OF CZECH LAND

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May be hoax Josh1024 (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May be hoax Josh1024 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep . How can this possibly be a hoax? Of course there was a period in European history called the High Middle Ages, and the area now the Czech Republic was in Europe, then and now.  One problem is the non-standard name, which I've changed to match other WP articles: History of the Czech lands in the High Middle Ages; it could equally well be called History of Bohemia in the High Middle Ages (& I made a redir from that, & have no objection to whichever consensus decides to call it),  linked from the main article History of the Czech lands and from History of Bohemia, The other problem is that It relies on a single Czech language reference, which is not ideal in the enWP--Additional ones need to be added, and I've tagged it accordingly.Since I'm not using my admin account, I'm reluctant  to just close this myself. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment A hoax, no, but it does have problems. It has no clear claim to notability. In fact, the lack of a lead leaves the whole purpose somewhat in doubt (I think it should be Bohemia, by the way).  It is hard to tell if this represents a summary of the consensus of a notable body of scholarly writings, or just the opinions of the one cited authors, especially the "Bad as well as happy era" bit.  In summary, I don't know what to make of it all. Agricolae (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * what has no clear claim to notability -- the history of a country in the middle ages? or do you mean its not enough to split form the main article? As for the writing, it does seem a summary based on a textbook, with the normal sort of judgments of such books. It would be very easy to make it neutral--as for sources, there are dozens of English language books covering the period, some devoted to the history of this particular area in this particular period. I noticed that none of the existing articles here seem to cover the period adequately; the first thing I did was to look for duplication.  DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article makes no claim to notability or significance, that's what. The article doesn't really even say what it is about (and it is not the history of the country during the middle ages - it is limited to a specific 150-year span).  It just starts with the inheritance after the death of the first King of Bohemia, then descends into nationalistic semantics at the end of the first section.  ('They called it Bohemia in Latin, but it was really called Czechia, and the Czech people thus became a unified tribe that would become a nation, but not the Moravians'? - well they also called it Bohemia in just about every other European language, still do in reference to this time period, and it was already a kingdom.  The whole bit about the Czech tribe then becoming unified (except for those who weren't) reads more like a national foundation myth than history.)  I have my concerns about this article, although my inability to read the source and a lack of clear exposition make it hard to evaluate (and even somewhat difficult to articulate). If it is about the "Land of the Czechs" during the High Middle Ages (as the author seems to intend), I would definitely question the notability of that geographical/ethnographical area during the medieval period (and again, it chooses to ignore the Moravians, who were Czech).  If it is about the Kingdom of Bohemia, it plucks what to me looks like an arbitrarily-selected 150-year period out of the broader span of the medieval kingdom, so may not be notable, as such.  Is this really a notably distinct period, like Tudor England, or does it just happen to be the time period the author of the sole cited source chose to study due to personal whim or because he ran out of funds and had to start writing however far he had gotten in his research by that point?  (For example, my gut says that most historians are going to begin with the first king, and not with the second.)  Again, I don't know, and there is insufficient information given (e.g. in a lead) to determine whether this particular span of years has special significance. About the first 1/3 of Kingdom of Bohemia covers this period.  Do we need a separate article on this particular time frame as opposed to just expanding that article, or perhaps an article with different bounds including the same period or part of it?  It is not obvious to me that this article represents the best way to deal with this nation and period (and it is not obvious that it isn't). Agricolae (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The history of the Czech lands in the High Middle Ages in the Czech high school textbooks usually cover the period starting with the rule of Vladislav II (c.1110–1174) and ending with Henry of Bohemia (c.1265–1335), see for example Dějepis pro gymnázia a střední školy II (History for Gymnasia and High Schools II) by Petr Čornej, who is without any doubt an authority in this field. The chapter is called "Czech State in the High Middle Ages" (pp. 61 -63) and suggests that the period as such is notable in the context of the Czech lands. The (not only political) development in the Czech lands had its own course and specifics and it is entirely possible to cover the period separately. The famous era of Luxembourg kings is sometimes mistakenly called the High Middle Ages, however, it is in fact the Late Middle Ages. Moravia was a part of the Kingdom of Bohemia since the rule of Bretislaus I (1002/1005 - 1055). Our article is barely comprehensible mess, but the topic is notable and has room for improvements. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs editing and more sourcing, but it's a good base as the main article for Bohemia. I disambiguated enough of the errant links to be convinced this is definitely no hoax. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I would prefer History of Bohemia in the High Middle Ages -- currently a redirect, since that was the name of mthe state at the time. It is properly linked to History of Bohemia using a main template.  I agree that the article is not an ideal one, and may need considerable improvement, but it certainluy shoujld not be deleted.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (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.