Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czechoslovak Socialist Republic

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: "I'm removing my nomination, as editors have pointed out this is better suited for discussion on the appropriate talk pages. Thanks for your input everyone! +Hexagon1 (t) 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Czech and Slovak Federal Republic

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

These two are the only nations in Czechoslovakian history that have their own article. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic doesn't contain anything that would warrant it's existence over the corresponding History of Czechoslovakia article, which is much longer. Czech and Slovak Federal Republic is basically an orphaned stub, which again has a lengthier History of Czechoslovakia article. Why do these two stages in CS history deserve nation articles and stages like RČS (1918-1938), Č-SR (1938-1939) and post-war ČS (1945-1947) don't? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Czechoslovakia and any articles related to its history as appropriate. --Hnsampat 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the longer article; not sure about the shorter one. Content forks on stages of a nation's governance are entirely valid. For example, we have Tanganyika and Zanzibar even though these two nations were merged into Tanzania. For encyclopedic purposes (and not only in Wikipedia, I assume) they are treated independently. If other parts of Czechoslovakia's history are not fully covered, feel free to create them! They are perfectly valid article topics in my estimation. YechielMan 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  That comes with controversy over what would be considered a separate state throughout its history. one might say that the states were 1918-20; 1920-38; 1938-39; 1939-45; 1945-47; 1947-61; 1961-89; 1989-92. Another might say they were 1918-38; 1945-89 and 1989-93, and yet another person might just say one state existed between 1918 and 1989. Any wild variation thereof would be possible, and this could not be standardized as expert literature uses conflicting terminology. These articles are unnecessary, redundant and serve to confuse. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both. Unlike chronological history articles (like History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989)), these pages are in in the form of a country page, divided into thematic sections (Economy, politics, religion, etc) like any other present day country article. This is actually quite common, especially for Category:Former socialist republics. Otherwise, we should have no Germany article, just a History of Germany that covers right up to today. The shorter article, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, is perhaps less necessary with less content, but it's existence helps clarify the very significant changes that occurred in the basic structure of the country. It could just as well be expanded, even though the country only lasted in that form for three years. - TheMightyQuill 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see this as a merge proposal and inappropriate for AFD. The editors of the Czech history articles should reach consensus as to which chronological periods deserve separate articles, based on available material. Clearly both of these articles pass notability requirements as sovereign nations that existed for significant periods of time. It is certainly easier for certain lists and categories for these to be separate (e.g. Category:Communist states is obviously inappropriate for all but the first article, although there is Category:Former socialist republics). I don't see a rationale for deletion here.--Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  The problem would be that there exists no even remotely standard definition of the different states, as I said above, and therefore any consensus reached would likely be WP:OR. There have been total re-workings before, many of which were partially reverted without thought and this left a huge mess in the articles (the CS history template links to ČSSR, but not History(45-89) and the opposite with ČSFR, as an example). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I think that this is not appropriate for AfD. It is a discussion for the editors of those two articles. Perhaps a Merge is in order? Bradybd 05:26, 30 May 2007 (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.