Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania and the Mongol Invasion of 1241


 * 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   Deleted by request of author (admins: see talkpage, last revision prior to deletion) Kylu (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Romania and the Mongol Invasion of 1241

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

This article looks like a POV fork, and is at best overkill. First of all, it's structured like "Whig history": there was no Romania to speak of back then (it's almost like having an article on "the United States and the Aztec Empire"), and not even the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Secondly, the Mongol invasion itself affected the Kingdom of Hungary and regions on its borders - presumably, they passed through Moldavia and Wallachia (no definitive proof of this was presented, or indeed could ever be presented, but it is unlikely that they followed other routes). A reliable reference in the Wallachia article specifically says that Mongol rule in the two countries is unattested. Now, the Mongol Empire was a notoriously loose polity, so claims to an actual rule over just about any region they passed through are debatable. The Mongol invasion in the region is covered (with a natural focus on Hungary, the only polity of the time to leave a definite account of anything that was happening) in Mongol invasion of Europe (note that there isn't a separate article for the invasion of Hungary, which is largely covered there), Battle of Mohi, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, the Wallachia and Moldavia pages, Romania in the Early Middle Ages, History of Transylvania, Foundation of Wallachia and several other articles (yes, the picture they paint is confusing and the articles appear isolated from, even "schizophrenic" to one another, and one more article going nowhere does not help at all). What's more, the (unreferenced and ungrammatical) article makes speculative and rather amusing claims. The lead thus states (using flawed terminology): "The Mongol invasion affected first of all Moldova and Wallachia and had a big impact on the Romanian history and culture and had destroyed all cultural and economical records from that time." It did? How would one assess this impact on Romanian culture back then, when the first local written records are dated some tens of years after the invasion? If we're supposed to assume it is because of the invasion, then we're dealing with the unheard sound of falling trees. Dahn (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nominator's vote. Dahn (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. For the record, the 2008 CIA World Factbook states:

"The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia - for centuries under the suzerainty of the Turkish Ottoman Empire - secured their autonomy in 1856; they united in 1859 and a few years later adopted the new name of Romania. The country gained recognition of its independence in 1878."--Quartermaster (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The first union of The Romanian Principalities was at 1601 but lasted only 1 day beacause Michael the Brave the ruler of this campaign was decapitated ♫Razool —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC).


 * I guess what the author meant was the territory of modern Romania. That is exactly the meaning of "Romania" from the article I suggest below to merge into. Dc76\talk 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the nominator couldn't have put it better. Records on this are exceedingly shaky, and insofar as we can build up our coverage of the topic, we have Mongol invasion of Europe to improve. - Biruitorul Talk 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Romania in the Early Middle Ages. There isn't much to merge, but still maybe two-three sentences. Note that the latter article has a section related to Tatar invasion of 1241-1242 (by the end of that article). That is an excellent place where this topic could be treatied, because, as Biruitorul explained, there is a scarcity of sourses for an article of its own. BTW, Dahn, you don't need to spend so much time to exaplain in so much detail. This nomination is straightforward, a no-brainer once you see the article. Dc76\talk 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe you're right, but I wanted (needed?) to stress that the article can't really go anywhere. Dahn (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to merge what was worth merging (into Romania in the Early Middle Ages and into History of Transylvania). So now, no (potentially or not valuable) information would be lost be the proposed deletion. Dc76\talk 02:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename I tried to create an article about actual the present romanian territory and the impact that the Mongol invasion had. If you want reference read ro:Invazia mongolă din 1241 şi ţările române. As you have mentioned my grammar seems "unworthy" of english wikipedia but as worse as my grammar seems to be there is nothing funny about this article! You do a better article! There is a good article for reference here http://www.rocsir.usv.ro/archiv/2004_1-2/2VioletaEpure2004.pdf


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, the whole subject can be summarised as "the Mongols probably went through Romania on their way to Hungary". bogdan (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and a horde of hundreds of thousands of Mongols flew from Asia to Hungary, Bulgaria and Serbia! come on! reference here: http://www.rocsir.usv.ro/archiv/2004_1-2/2VioletaEpure2004.pdf ♫Razool 19:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference is ok. But this can easily fit as a subsection in Romania in the Early Middle Ages. Don't take Bogdan's words to the letter. It is clear what he meant: you did not really add much info. Try to read Dahn's and Biruitorul's comments again. They are not your enemies, there is absolutley nothing personal here. Please, think logically, and you yourself would realize that it's better to have a well-developed section rather than a poor article. Dc76\talk 19:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys this is no contribution what you are doing here this is deleting. I tried to create a starting point for an article. If Dahn is so smart why doesn't he create an article because there is definitely a lack of information on the matter. It is obvious that the Mongols had a big impact on our society. there were no fortifications and the people in the plains was taken by surprise even the Hungarians who had few fortifications had very big losses. IT WAS A VERY BIG IMPACT PROBABLY EVEN BIGGER THAN IT WAS FOR THE HUNGARIANS. The Hungarian troops were composed of Romanians in the bloodiest first campaigns. You cannot say such things as bogdan said that's real subjectiveness. Do some research!! That's all from myself. I'm all done on this matter!! PLEASE CONTRIBUTE ON THIS MATTER!!! ♫Razool 20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really didn't think it would come to this. But all right, if you insist: 1) Did you introduce information in concise informative manner? No, you didn't, you put it worse than in a blog. Hello, this an encyclopedia! Can we adhere to higher standards, please. 2) Did you introduce sentances that reflect faithfully what historians say? No, you introduced your oral understanding. Historians are supposed to do research, not you or us. We are forbidden to do research! See WP:OR, please. 3) Your passages do not even qualify as research, so poorly were they written. And it's not only about English. The article in the Romanian Wikipedia is not much better. How many times are you repeating every piece of info? Generally twice or three times. You should wirte it once but well. It seems that you do not have the patience to spend 5-10 minutes with each sentence. Yes, yes, that's a minimum! 4) Did you gather enough info for an article? By far, you did not. You only have one sourse, and that can barely help you write a small section. But you want more. And you want other to do it for you.
 * The conclusion is: you are not really interested in bringing info to WP, but instead you look for ways to create confrontation. We told you: start a section in Romania in the Early Middle Ages, develope it, with sourses, with high standard of naration. Once you have sufficient material, propose a separate article. Would this course of action have prevented you to contribute to WP on this topic? Not at all. Conclusion: you are not really interested to build an encyclopedia. You are simply looking for some guilty party. Why there is so little info about Romanians during the Mongol invarion? Because nobody so far took the time to look it up. Are you interested to look it up? No. What are you interested in? To find a party to blame. Is it better for the WP to have around a person which does not wish to contribute in civil manner, but wishes to blame without sense and create trouble? No, WP would do better without such persons. If you don't have the civility and good manner to contribute with patience and assumption of good faith, then please leave. Dc76\talk 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you did not notice, every time there was anything remotely useful in what you wrote on this subject, I introduced or copyedited it into Romania in the Early Middle Ages, Mongol invasion of Europe, and History of Transylvania. Something that you should have been doing. Dc76\talk 01:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The last thing i wanted was a confruntation!! actually I wanted other people like you who seem to know what they are doing more than I do to contribute on this matter. I know you want the best image for us in here. That is good. But I cannot do it. Believe me I have spent a lot more than 5-10 min in the last week on wikipedia. I think i spent a lot more than i should have. I found a lack of information on this matter and read a few articles. The conclusion was that this is not at all like bogdan described it and even your opinion was subjective. Again all i wanted was to create a starting point for an article. I wasn't good. Ok it wasn't i admit it. But is that the way to handle it? You made some changes to the text and added it to Romania in middle age -- that was contribution. That was contribution the rest was CRAP!! What Dahn said was no contribution either (maybe this discussion was) Actually all of this is nonsense. Sorry for sounding so irritated but I was especially on bogdan's comment! Have a good day!! ♫Razool 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was perhaps a bad idea to start contributing to WP with an article on a topic with very scarse sourses. Some people just have it naturally and avoid conflict. Proceed with tact. You see people oppose a separate article, volonteer to merge as a section in some other article. You have to know when to be principial (on moral issues, on factual issues), and when to be tactful (especially on matters of taste, convention, style). Dc76\talk 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improove the article. It's easy to delete, but useful to improve. Or, at least merge into Romania in the Early Middle Ages. --Olahus (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete. My guess is that Mongol rule did not happen because some one was strong enough to repel the invasion.  If so, this infirmation should be included in articles on the states in question, not an area created by merging two provinces in the 1850s and adding to it Hungarian territory after WWI.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into either Romania in the Early Middle Ages or Mongol invasion of Europe. There just really isn't enough here to justify an article, but it does deserve mention.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 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.

}