Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Wallachia


 * 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 redirect to Wallachia. That the topic is notable is not in dispute. Consensus is that the content in the article is inferior in scope and reliable sourcing to what exists in the redirect target, and that a reader is better served by reading the existing section in the Wallachia article than an article which largely fails WP:V. There is no reason our editors can not re-build this article, probably preferably from scratch. I would recommend building in sandbox until such time as the new article is larger in scope than the History section, replete with reliable sources, but this last is a personal opinion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

History of Wallachia

 * – ( View AfD View log  of Wallachia )

The article lacks RS, it has been redirected (and reverted) twice to Wallachia, and WP:OR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK both apply. There are also several spinoff articles about historic Wallachian uprisings, revolutions, and elections. Atsme Talk 📧 14:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect, as per original wl (where the subject is treated, with other related articles linked in each proper subsection). (Rgvis (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC))
 * delete No sources, therefore not notable for WP. Should not have been created over a redirect. Denzil1963 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to Wallachia, as history is a substantial part of that article. In principle, that section might be summarised and the present text converted to a free-standing article, but this article has far too few references to be kept.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I am extremely surprised that such a dispute is taking place at all. The article about the area sketches in sections the history of the geographical area. This article is about the history of the political community, which undoubtedly existed from the late Middle Ages to the formation of Romania. This article does not deal at all and cannot affect, for example, prehistory in the field. The situation is similar with the article in English about Moldova. Moldova is a neighboring political community, but too often at war with Wallachia, and methodologically the history of Moldova is not analogous to that of Wallachia. An extensive article on the history of Moldova in English was created and in 2012 it was merged and is now a bulam. But there is such an article in Romanian and Turkish. However, this is not the case with the history of Transylvania. Transylvania entered Romania only 56 years later than Wallachia and Moldavia, but there is no longer a dispute. This is a double standard. Anyone who wishes is free to improve and supplement the article, but not to delete it by merging it, because the latter is outright censorship. Bodinski2 (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to Wallachia. unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Wm335td (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think there are any problems here, we need editors to contribute with sources. If there's no sources which speak about history of Wallachia this fact should be discussed first on talk page because there are sources in the article and there are probably some other sources which exist. I came across some sources which mention Wallachia and how much they talked about history I cannot say now because I do not remember but I know that Wallachia and some events from history was mentioned. Mikola22 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect: per nom. I admit when I saw the title of the AfD my gut reaction was "Are you kidding me?" given Wallachia's prominence and history.  But the length and breadth of the Wallachia section is extensive (considerably more so than this one), outstanding, and probably would make B-class at least as a standalone article.  This content fork is superfluous and not necessary, and I'm frankly somewhat baffled at the opposition.  Have they looked at Wallachia?  Beyond that, they haven't advanced any legitimate reason to prevent a redirect, beyond WP:ILIKEIT.   Ravenswing      17:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Contra. This is an autonomous region from the late Middle Ages to modern times. Accordingly, the history of this area is a separate topic and should not be scattered in other articles such as the history of Romania or in the article presenting and explaining what this area is. 213.149.159.237 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: As, it happens, it would not be: the proposed redirect target IS the Wallachia article.   Ravenswing     23:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The exact opposite is reasonable and correct. Part of the content of Wallachia to supplement this article. 213.149.159.237 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect to Wallachia  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes. There is a consensus on the merger. The question, or rather the dispute, is whether the content Wallachia should come in this separate article (which is right, reasonable and normal) or whether to erase the history of the autonomous region from the 15th-19th centuries. 213.149.159.237 (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Nonsense. There is more historical content in the Wallachia section than in this fork, and a redirect would "erase" nothing beyond some knee-jerk nationalist competition defined by how many separate articles there are saying the exact same things.   Ravenswing      04:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Wallachia has a history dating back to 1330. Romania did not have a history before 1859. So there is an article on the history of Romania (a century and a half) outside the presentation of Romania in the main article, and Wallachia with an independent history within 6 centuries - no. There is no weight and logic to the proposal. Bodinski2 (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really, really baffled here. Let me phrase this as simply as I can: no one is proposing a redirect to Romanian articles.  Wallachia already has an article. We are proposing redirecting this to that article.  There is no weight or logic to your opposition.   Ravenswing      20:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Wallachia. Nobody is saying that the history of Wallachia is non-notable, what they are saying is that the article is not beneficial and the topic is already covered (and covered better, I should add) in the mentioned section. We could discuss a split from that article to this one, but that's for another day, and what can be instituted in the interim is a redirect. The article as it stands is poorly sourced, and doesn't contain great writing either. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:13, 24 August 2020 (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.