Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of annexations since World War II


 * 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 delete. As redundant to List of military occupations.  Sandstein  08:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

List of annexations since World War II
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There has been a list embedded in the article Annexation since at lease 2009 (500 edits ago). The list is not large currently 14 entries and 11 back in 2009. The only recent entries to be added were for events that happened in 2014 and 2015. The scope of the list depends on the information in the article Annexation, and is closely coupled with the definition of Annexation given in the article. Since the list was created under it has been moved from "List of annexations" to "List of annexations since World War II", but it has nothing directly to do with the World War II. The list is to do with changes in International Law following World War II.

If the list is from World War II, then it would include several more annexations, and this leads into difficult territory and a POV minefield of OR and opinions. This is because before the change in International law annexation was really common. If the list is not to include definitions of why it exists then any annexation from any period could be included. This leads to fun. For example did France annex Alsace at the end of the war (take you pick as to which one) or reclaim territory rightfully hers?

So this list should be deleted because the list in the original article as examples after 1949 and the change of international. It is not a definitive list, this allows wriggle room that a definitive list does not. Without the explanation embedded the article Annexation of why this list is so restrictive it will be expanded and will not fulfil a useful function, and if the explanation is included then why have two articles? And the article name Annexation meets the bullet points for an article much better that "List of ..." -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, 48 hours ago this article had its name changed without discussion: . From its creation until just then, it has been called List of annexations.
 * A list of annexations is useful to readers. It fits elegantly against List of military occupations, where the tables include a column as to whether the territories were subsequently annexed or not. Some annexations take place without a prior military occupation.
 * Also the "not a definitive list" comment applies to a huge number of other lists in Wikipedia, including related lists such as List of military occupations, List of territorial disputes, List of border conflicts and List of invasions.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping something. List of annexations without a definition will inevitably lead to the list expanding (as is implied with the name change). If there is to be a explanation for the list then the list of 14 items may as well be included in the article Annexation The total size with the 14 examples is on only 28k with the list sized as about 16k, so the article is not too large and the list size of 16k does not dominate the dominate the article to its determinant.
 * Your use of a column for annexation in "List of military occupations" is a classic example of really bad additions to a "list of". You have not sourced one example--how are you going to source the entries of "no annexation"? Just because you have not found a source, it does not mean that no annexation took place, because an absences of a reliable source for a fact does not mean that a fact is reliably sourced. There is no time limit on you binary option so for example East Timor is "annexed"? Whether territory is annexed or not is often disputed so a simple "yes" implying a binary truth is less than helpful. Usually it takes a paragraph to briefly explain the dispute (as is done in the Annexation article), because otherwise it leads misleading information: is Alsace currently annexed? -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This post suggests a few misunderstandings. It would have been much better if you had begun a good faith discussion at the thread I opened at Talk:Annexation so would could have worked through misunderstandings these first. Here you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and I foresee this conversation is going to become convoluted very quickly.
 * Anyway, to respond to your points.
 * Before we get to the misunderstandings, your proposal needs to be broken down into two: (a), is the structured tabular format better than the random list?, and (b), is this list better in or out of the annexation article? On a., it is objecively clear to me that the table is better - on that I feel strongly. On b., I do not really mind (I doubt anyone does), but I like the elegance of having a separate list given the existence of all the other similar list topics I noted above.
 * As to the rest of your post, whether a territory is technically "occupied" or "annexed" is usually easy to source, and usually very clear. The piece that is frequently disputed is whether such annexation is "legal" or "recognized". Think Crimea or Tibet - we describe these as annexations on their respective articles, because they were annexations, not because we are taking a view either way as to whether they were legally recognized. As to your examples, East Timor is an independent country, and the phrase "currently annexed" for Alsace is a highly unusual description (I believe technically Germany "ceded" it to France in the last transfer).
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – Given the small size of the source article, a WP:SPLIT is not useful. Also, formatting as a table is less legible than the clearly labeled examples with section headers. Wikipedia style usually prefers prose. — JFG talk 10:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - List of military occupations already has this information. As a WP:SPLIT of Annexation, this list is counter-productive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment See Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom (February 2014) closer recommended incorporating the list back into Progrom article where it has remained. -- PBS (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- because List of military occupations does the job better. However, I would have preferred the split in that article to be c.1945, rather than 1960.  I say c.1946, because the victorious powers did not immediately provide a national government.  "Occupation" needs to be defined as taking complete governmental control.  In the communist republics of the Eastern Europe, there continued to be a Soviet garrison and the rulers were to some degree under Soviet tutelage, but they were sovereign states rather earlier than the dates in the list.  Conversely the Baltic Republics were annexed by USSR until 1991.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (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.