Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Estonian SSR (independent): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:37, 3 May 2007 editFrozenPurpleCube (talk | contribs)9,603 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:01, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(19 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete''' (] of ]). <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}}
:{{la|Estonian SSR (independent)}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Estonian SSR (independent)}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Legally no such country has ever existed. ] 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Legally no such country has ever existed. ] 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:*I note that the companion/rival article ] has also been nominated for deletion. ] 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC) :*I note that the companion/rival article ] has also been nominated for deletion. ] 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's apparently a companion; these two have been created by the same person, ]. They are both equally meritless. ] 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ::It's apparently a companion; these two have been created by the same person, ]. They are both equally meritless. ] 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:*Basicly what you are saying is that Estonian history of this period should not be covered in Misplaced Pages, because "legally the country did not exist". -- ] 05:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::* No! Its not what Im sayng! Im saying that this historic period belongs to a country ] and is not separable from that as a separate country. Please refine from distorting my words.--] 10:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::*If that is what you think, why did you not simply suggest merging this article with ]? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
⚫ Are you saying this is a Hoax? Otherwise, if it was self-governing for two years I say '''Keep''' <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">Citi</span><span style="color:#151B8D;">Cat</span></b> 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:I say its a hoax. Read the Estonian history article. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:51, 2 May 2007</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


⚫ *'''comment''' this seems like a complex content dispute that is not best handled at AFD, as certainly the history of Estonia should be documented, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether or not this article, or another one is adequately sourced, or the appropriate way to cover it is a question best suited for some form of Dispute resolution. ] 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
⚫ Are you saying this is a Hoax? Otherwise, if it was self-governing for two years I say '''Keep''' <b><font color="#FF0000">Citi</font><font color="#151B8D">Cat</font></b> 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:I say its a hoax. Read the Estonian history article. {{Unsigned2|23:51, 2 May 2007|Alexia Death}}

⚫ *'''comment''' this seems like a complex content dispute that is not best handled at AFD, as certainly the history of Estonia should be documented, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether or not this article, or another one is adequately sourced, or the appropriate way to cover it is a question best suited for some form of Dispute resolution. ] 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::'''Delete'''. Nobody is suggesting not documenting history of Estonia. In fact, history of Estonia has been considerably documented in the aptly named article ], as well as ]. ::'''Delete'''. Nobody is suggesting not documenting history of Estonia. In fact, history of Estonia has been considerably documented in the aptly named article ], as well as ].
::However, this article is not about documenting history of Estonia. It is about a fictional legal construct; about a state transforming into another state where such transformation never happened. ::However, this article is not about documenting history of Estonia. It is about a fictional legal construct; about a state transforming into another state where such transformation never happened.
::No state of "Estonian SSR (independent)" has ever been declared, nor recognised by any foreign power, nor international body. ] 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ::No state of "Estonian SSR (independent)" has ever been declared, nor recognised by any foreign power, nor international body. ] 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, you can contest the accuracy of the information on the page if you want, but as I see it, the way to do that is to try ] instead. AFD is not the solution to use. ] 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC) :::Well, you can contest the accuracy of the information on the page if you want, but as I see it, the way to do that is to try ] instead. AFD is not the solution to use. ] 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::::How is using DR better in a case when article is contradicting facts? What's to dispute?`The intent of the person who created the category? No country in USSR was independent. No legal entity separable from Estonian SSR exist... {{unsigned|Alexia Death}} ::::How is using DR better in a case when article is contradicting facts? What's to dispute?`The intent of the person who created the category? No country in USSR was independent. No legal entity separable from Estonian SSR exist... <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::::Dispute resolution would be better because it'd demonstrate that you were working with other editors to resolve a problem as to content, plus it would give a better chance of getting the facts correct. ] 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC) :::::Dispute resolution would be better because it'd demonstrate that you were working with other editors to resolve a problem as to content, plus it would give a better chance of getting the facts correct. ] 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Cause for AFD is that the subject matter of the article artificial unsubstantiated construct unsupported by any evidence. It never existed. Giving information about a nonexistent entity belongs to fiction. Information in this article may belong to ] but not to describe a state on its own. The only person resisting deletion has given no arguments, only actuations of POV pushing --] 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ::::::Cause for AFD is that the subject matter of the article artificial unsubstantiated construct unsupported by any evidence. It never existed. Giving information about a nonexistent entity belongs to fiction. Information in this article may belong to ] but not to describe a state on its own. The only person resisting deletion has given no arguments, only actuations of POV pushing --] 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I'd honestly say that nobody has really commented on deletion of this article in a truly convincing way. If you wish to make that kind of argument, I suggest doing so in the form of DR, where you can provide evidence as to your position. Right now, your arguments are based solely on your words, not actual sources yourself. Now as far as it goes, I expect this to be a difficult issue to research and discuss, so I'd suggest checking for a resolution through other means. ] 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) :::::::Well, I'd honestly say that nobody has really commented on deletion of this article in a truly convincing way. If you wish to make that kind of argument, I suggest doing so in the form of DR, where you can provide evidence as to your position. Right now, your arguments are based solely on your words, not actual sources yourself. Now as far as it goes, I expect this to be a difficult issue to research and discuss, so I'd suggest checking for a resolution through other means. ] 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Very well, but please tell me what are my options in proving that a country does NOT and HAS not existed? Pointing you to ] was not enough... In its sister topics discussion, CIA factbook was cited(I see no point in coping it here since your active in that discussion too) clearly stating that ] lasted until declaration of the reinstatement of independence on August 20th 1991, and as far as I know two countrys cant occupy the same territory at the same time. Do you need a picture of a world map at the time showing that no ] suddenly appeared from somewhere? What is it that would satisfy you? --] 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
⚫ *'''comment''' There was no country like this. The Estonia SSR was granted some economic and civil liberties under the charter of USSR, thats all. A change in legistration does not make it a new country. No state symbols or government form changes at all. There was Estonian SSR(that was not an independent country) until reinstatement of Republic of Estonia in 1991. Besides that, this article contadics ]. {{Unsigned2|23:51, 2 May 2007|Alexia Death}}
:::::::::Again, proving this or disproving this isn't the issue. I'm merely trying to suggest that an option be sought through DR to resolve the issues here. ] 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Could you please state the issues? There has been no seriously considerable arguments against deletion. Here is not one shred of evidence that a country that should be called anything other than ] existed during this period... whats there to solve?--] 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Perhaps the apparent disagreement existing between various editors? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to define the positions of other editors. I'm trying to stay neutral here, so I'll suggest leaving the statement of positions to those with one. But I will express the reason for my concern that this be settled through DR methods. You may not be aware, but discussions of matters of national interest tend to result in a fair bit of trouble on Misplaced Pages. Since I'd rather have Misplaced Pages improved by accurately covering the history of Estonia's independence in the wake of the USSR's dissolution, I'd rather an effort be made to resolve the issues through dialogue between editors. It's really not that hard. All you need to do is talk to the other users. ] 02:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
⚫ *'''comment''' There was no country like this. The Estonia SSR was granted some economic and civil liberties under the charter of USSR, thats all. A change in legistration does not make it a new country. No state symbols or government form changes at all. There was Estonian SSR(that was not an independent country) until reinstatement of Republic of Estonia in 1991. Besides that, this article contadics ]. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:51, 2 May 2007</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


*'''Speedy keep''' - When I first saw this article, I thought it was Estonian nationalist POV-pushing to delegitimize the ] (Exactly the opposite of what the nominators of this and ] claim.) I first considered suggesting a merge to ESSR, but after seeing the related ] article I understood its logic. The deletion proposal is an effort to push a Estonian POV in the wake of the Estonian - Russian ] conflict, possibly bad faith. *'''Speedy keep''' - When I first saw this article, I thought it was Estonian nationalist POV-pushing to delegitimize the ] (Exactly the opposite of what the nominators of this and ] claim.) I first considered suggesting a merge to ESSR, but after seeing the related ] article I understood its logic. The deletion proposal is an effort to push a Estonian POV in the wake of the Estonian - Russian ] conflict, possibly bad faith.
Line 24: Line 36:
*'''conditional keep''' provided the author supplies ] for the described event. Whatever the article title might be, it is a valid approach to have a separate historical article for clearly defined historical period. `'] 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) *'''conditional keep''' provided the author supplies ] for the described event. Whatever the article title might be, it is a valid approach to have a separate historical article for clearly defined historical period. `'] 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::Like for its sister, if it was about an historical period, id have no complaints about it. it is however about a "short lived country" placed between territories. It was never a country and certainly not independent.--] 00:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ::Like for its sister, if it was about an historical period, id have no complaints about it. it is however about a "short lived country" placed between territories. It was never a country and certainly not independent.--] 00:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The article and its sources don't even establish that the Estonian SSR purported to become independent in 1988. It may have declared its laws to take precedence over those of the USSR, but it didn't withdraw from the USSR at that time. This article is pushing a point of view but I don't understand what it is. --] 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy keep'''. This cannot be viewed outside the context of the ]. If anything must be done, arbitration is the answer. --] 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:*Why should claiming that instead of one historically accepted ] two countries existed(Totally unsubstantiated BTW) have anything at all to do with the ] except that one person mislead by this article linked here in the talk pages? --] 15:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete.''' Appears to be a content dispute in the form of a ]. This is about the country and former SSR ], yes? Whether it was (or claimed to be) briefly independent at a specific time, although I don't quite understand what the article is at all about, belongs in ], not into its own stub. ] 17:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 18:01, 6 February 2023

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 (WP:POVFORK of History of Estonia). WjBscribe 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonian SSR (independent)

Estonian SSR (independent) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Legally no such country has ever existed. Alexia Death 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's apparently a companion; these two have been created by the same person, Läänemere lained. They are both equally meritless. Digwuren 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Basicly what you are saying is that Estonian history of this period should not be covered in Misplaced Pages, because "legally the country did not exist". -- Petri Krohn 05:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying this is a Hoax? Otherwise, if it was self-governing for two years I say Keep CitiCat 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I say its a hoax. Read the Estonian history article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 May 2007
  • comment this seems like a complex content dispute that is not best handled at AFD, as certainly the history of Estonia should be documented, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether or not this article, or another one is adequately sourced, or the appropriate way to cover it is a question best suited for some form of Dispute resolution. FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nobody is suggesting not documenting history of Estonia. In fact, history of Estonia has been considerably documented in the aptly named article History of Estonia, as well as ].
However, this article is not about documenting history of Estonia. It is about a fictional legal construct; about a state transforming into another state where such transformation never happened.
No state of "Estonian SSR (independent)" has ever been declared, nor recognised by any foreign power, nor international body. Digwuren 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can contest the accuracy of the information on the page if you want, but as I see it, the way to do that is to try WP:DR instead. AFD is not the solution to use. FrozenPurpleCube 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How is using DR better in a case when article is contradicting facts? What's to dispute?`The intent of the person who created the category? No country in USSR was independent. No legal entity separable from Estonian SSR exist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs)
Dispute resolution would be better because it'd demonstrate that you were working with other editors to resolve a problem as to content, plus it would give a better chance of getting the facts correct. FrozenPurpleCube 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Cause for AFD is that the subject matter of the article artificial unsubstantiated construct unsupported by any evidence. It never existed. Giving information about a nonexistent entity belongs to fiction. Information in this article may belong to Estonian SSR but not to describe a state on its own. The only person resisting deletion has given no arguments, only actuations of POV pushing --Alexia Death 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd honestly say that nobody has really commented on deletion of this article in a truly convincing way. If you wish to make that kind of argument, I suggest doing so in the form of DR, where you can provide evidence as to your position. Right now, your arguments are based solely on your words, not actual sources yourself. Now as far as it goes, I expect this to be a difficult issue to research and discuss, so I'd suggest checking for a resolution through other means. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Very well, but please tell me what are my options in proving that a country does NOT and HAS not existed? Pointing you to History of Estonia was not enough... In its sister topics discussion, CIA factbook was cited(I see no point in coping it here since your active in that discussion too) clearly stating that Estonian SSR lasted until declaration of the reinstatement of independence on August 20th 1991, and as far as I know two countrys cant occupy the same territory at the same time. Do you need a picture of a world map at the time showing that no Estonian SSR (independent) suddenly appeared from somewhere? What is it that would satisfy you? --Alexia Death 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, proving this or disproving this isn't the issue. I'm merely trying to suggest that an option be sought through DR to resolve the issues here. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please state the issues? There has been no seriously considerable arguments against deletion. Here is not one shred of evidence that a country that should be called anything other than Estonian SSR existed during this period... whats there to solve?--Alexia Death 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the apparent disagreement existing between various editors? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to define the positions of other editors. I'm trying to stay neutral here, so I'll suggest leaving the statement of positions to those with one. But I will express the reason for my concern that this be settled through DR methods. You may not be aware, but discussions of matters of national interest tend to result in a fair bit of trouble on Misplaced Pages. Since I'd rather have Misplaced Pages improved by accurately covering the history of Estonia's independence in the wake of the USSR's dissolution, I'd rather an effort be made to resolve the issues through dialogue between editors. It's really not that hard. All you need to do is talk to the other users. FrozenPurpleCube 02:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • comment There was no country like this. The Estonia SSR was granted some economic and civil liberties under the charter of USSR, thats all. A change in legistration does not make it a new country. No state symbols or government form changes at all. There was Estonian SSR(that was not an independent country) until reinstatement of Republic of Estonia in 1991. Besides that, this article contadics History of Estonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 May 2007
How can stating a fact be POV is beyond me, but say what you may, Estonian SSR was never independent and a minor granting of liberties do not make it neither independent nor a new country. As to why no deletion tag earlier,I did not know about this article. Thanks for showing me, that such articles existed, so mistakes can be corrected. Alexia Death 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • conditional keep provided the author supplies reliable sources for the described event. Whatever the article title might be, it is a valid approach to have a separate historical article for clearly defined historical period. `'mikka 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Like for its sister, if it was about an historical period, id have no complaints about it. it is however about a "short lived country" placed between territories. It was never a country and certainly not independent.--Alexia Death 00:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article and its sources don't even establish that the Estonian SSR purported to become independent in 1988. It may have declared its laws to take precedence over those of the USSR, but it didn't withdraw from the USSR at that time. This article is pushing a point of view but I don't understand what it is. --Metropolitan90 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This cannot be viewed outside the context of the Bronze Soldier. If anything must be done, arbitration is the answer. --Pan Gerwazy 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a content dispute in the form of a WP:POVFORK. This is about the country and former SSR Estonia, yes? Whether it was (or claimed to be) briefly independent at a specific time, although I don't quite understand what the article is at all about, belongs in History of Estonia, not into its own stub. Sandstein 17:55, 9 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.