Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Empire (entity, 1936–1943)


 * 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 and merge Jeremy's solution seemed to have most support. I've moved this to Italian empire and have proposed the merge. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian Empire (entity, 1936–1943)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is essentially a content fork from Italian Colonial Empire. I am proposing this article for deletion for the following reasons:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Italian Empire" was officially declared by Mussolini in 1936 but he was just giving a name to something that was the same the day after his proclamation as the day before.
 * There is already an existing article for the "entity" that Mussolini renamed, at Italian Colonial Empire: the two were one and the same.
 * What content deserves to be at Italian Empire (entity, 1936–1943) but not Italian Colonial Empire? None, as far as I can see.  Again, the two were one and the same thing after the declaration.
 * The situation is similar to Third Reich and Greater German Reich which redirect to Nazi Germany, rather than have their own article (despite the latter being the official name from 1942). Admittedly, German Reich has its own article, but this was a term that spanned eras and political administrations, and there is no German Reich (entity, 19XX-XX) article.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick  . Open and shut, no such entity existed. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Although you're agreeing with my AfD, I have to say that's not true, Herr Direktor: Mussolini did declare the "Italian Empire" in 1936 (see Lowe, C.J. (2002). Italian Foreign Policy 1870-1940. Routledge.,p289). So I personally don't dispute that this thing actually existed, I just dispute that it requires a separate article from Italian Colonial Empire.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the state did not become an "Empire". The King did not proclaim himself the "Emperor of Italy". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * DISCLAIMER: I WAS ASKED TO COMMENT. This is a goofy setup. It looks as though this article is not a content fork of the entire article, but a split-out of the section currently titled "Fascism and the "Italian Empire" (1922-1940)". However, the name Italian Empire was used only from 1936 to 1943, according to the article. At the same time, the other sections of "Italian Colonial Empire" don't seem to address the empire. Italian Empire redirects to this article; this was the official name. Therefore, I'd say move to Italian Empire, merge the sections "Fascism and the "Italian Empire" (1922-1940)" and "End of Empire (1943-1960)" into it, and redirect "Italian Colonial Empire" to "Italian Empire". JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears the nominator has been Canvassing to get votes in favor of his/her position, , , , ,  C t j f 8 3 Talk 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After review, I don't think User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick was intentionally trying to sway votes for delete. Perhaps next time "leave a note at the discussion itself that you sent out such friendly notices"  C t j f 8 3 Talk 04:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In defense of the nom, I don't think we'd all share one position. We were on differing sides on the merge of Italian Mare Nostrum (which we eventually got a good consensus on). I think they contacted us because the article is a similar topic. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Jeremy. That is exactly what I did.  Ho hum, some people just shoot first and don't assume good faith.  The fact that I neutrally notified only the small set of people who were involved with a similar issue and subject (and some of whom disagreed with me until we all found consensus) can be verified here.  I have asked Ctjf83 to strike out his comment, we'll see if he is decent enough to do so.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why notify anyone on talk pages? If they are part of a project, that found the previous deleted page, they will find this one.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 11:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Ctjf83, I'm afraid I disagree with you there. If THRoPF hadn't notified me I (very probably) wouldn't have found this discussion. He/she was not, in my view, canvassing but simply notifying editors he/she knew were interested in the topic about this discussion. And since we're an unruly lot in this area, I'd say the notion that editors would come over and dutifully line up and say 'delete!' would be wildly over-optimistic, and I'm sure THRoPF would agree with me. On the substantive matter at hand, I'd say Jeremy's detailed analysis and proposal just about sums it up as far as I'm concerned. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Echo Jeremy and Alistair on "canvassing".


 * On the article, I’ll need to read them, but offhand I’m not averse to separate pages on the various stages of a country’s existence, if there is something worth saying; haven't we done that for other countries with empires? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV-fork, which is disallowed: We get a proliferation of articles along these lines.  Is fascist Italy blue?  Is Italy in World War 2 blue?  Without some coherence and plan to the presentation of the material, we end up duplicating.  As a political act the creation of the "empire" has significance, but as a geo-political entity, it is synonymous with "fascist Italy," or very nearly so.  What is important is not the victory of this point of view or that, but the logical, coherent presentation of information in a way that will be most accessible and logical for readers.  This name and presentation fails those vital criteria.  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably merge -- This article is covering the same ground as two section of Italian Colonial Empire; we cannot have both. There are two possible solutions: (1) merge to that article (2) restructure that article so that this article can be a sub-article to one section, linked by a main template.  I would prefer the merge option, but there is probably not very much content in this article to be trasferred in merging.  Note I was also summoned here by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2008 (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.