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. --Coredesat 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Estonia (1990-1991)

[edit]
Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is an attempt to legitimise the POV that no continuity exists between the current Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Estonia established in early XX century, and cites no sources. Digwuren 09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? -- Petri Krohn 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History of Estonia. The fact that virtually the only page that links to it is the Bronze Soldier of Talinn (a page where many wikipedians appear intent on fighting WWIII) isn't exactly inspiring either. --RaiderAspect 07:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Estonian SSR says that the US and the UK "considered the annexation of Estonia by USSR illegal" and "never recognized the existence of the Estonian SSR de jure." So Estonia did legally exist, at least according to the opinion of some. Anyway, I'm still deciding how to vote on this one. But the nominators statement that the article denies continuity between the two republics seems to be false. StAnselm 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Estonian SSR existed, but it was never an independent country. It has its own article. This article contradicts History of Estonia. The country symbols were not used officially until independence was redeclared. There was no country like this during that period as this territory was Estonia SSR. Alexia Death 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realised only just now what you were trying to say. the first Republic never ceased to exist legally all through the existence of Estonian SSR, but de facto no territory by the name of Republic of Estonia existed during that time. It wasnt a territory but a legal ghost of a country. Alexia Death 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the last year of Estonian SSR the NAME of the territory was at one point changed to Republic of Estonia as documented in the history of Estonia but the territory remained part of USSR. What is a new territory in the context of this series? The name? then this should be merged into the Republic of Estonia article following it(makes no sense), if by legal standing then into Estonian SSR(logical choice). Alexia Death 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you no not know Estonian history, why do you vote? Anyway, if any merging is to be done, this should go to Estonian SSR. -- Petri Krohn 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to merging any sensible content to Estonian SSR as long as another oddity currently under dispute Estonian SSR (independent)‎ gets merged/deleted into the same as well Alexia Death 23:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is documented plenty in History of Estonia and the legistration changes belong in Estonian SSR. If a country or territory is considered to be a new one every time a law changes most countries would be reborn quite often.Alexia Death 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is proposing not documenting such history. Indeed, such documentation has already been done to a significant degree, as pointed out by Alexia Death.
However, this article is not about documenting the freedom process of Estonia, but about declaring a fictitious legal entity. This is blatant historical revisionism, already used for WP:POV pushing purposes on other article's discussion pages.
And did I mention the article cites no sources? It is because sources that would support this article as distinct from the real history article do not exist. Delete (after all, I made the formal request for deletion.) Digwuren 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. You may have legitimate concerns. You may not. The problem is, the subject of this article is not a problem. If there's things in the article that aren't referenced, reference them. Untrue? Replace them with the truth. However, since this is clearly a content dispute, I don't see AFD as truly resolving the issues here. The processes outlined in WP:DR are likely to be more effective. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you understand why this was marked for AFD. Subject matter of the article never existed. There was no such state. Period. How can you make true statements about something that never existed?Alexia Death
Well, if that's your position, you're certainly welcome to argue it in DR. FrozenPurpleCube 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see only one way that would allow this subject article to continue existing meaningfully, and it goes like this:
"Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) was a fictional short-lived country that belonged to the Soviet Alliance, which was fictional too. It was a wonderful land, being filled with fictional candy trees, fictional milk rivers and fictional porridge hills, and per executive order of the wise czar Lenin I, all toilets in the country were made of pure fictional gold."
Somehow, I doubt this is what you have in mind. Digwuren 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to you expect me to prove that a country does not exist if cites on this very page stating that Estonian SSR lasted until 1991 and two countryes cant exist on same territory at the same time are not proof enough? --Alexia Death 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - Another indication of the BAD FAITH of this nomination is that the nominator placed it in Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts). -- Petri Krohn 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did so because this is the only category that fits, this article being about fictional alternate history. There is no category for world politics, nor geography. I considered 'places and transportation', but its relation to transportation, which this article does not touch, and the fictionality of the place mentioned, forced me to choose 'fiction' over that. I also considered 'indiscernible' and 'uncategorisable' and found neither to apply here. If there had been 'other', I would have used that one; alas, there isn't.
I resent your accusations of bad faith. Digwuren 12:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a legal fact that an independent country of this article never existed in the legal realm. How again exactly is stating a fact POV? Cutting legally one territory into bits serves no purpose other than pushing some other (bizzare) POV. Alexia Death 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myzz 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or to be more precise - At that time Republic of Estonia was still under occupation (After Hitler's Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Estonia was occupied by German armed forces from 1941 to 1944 when the Soviets again took over. ... The de jure continuity of the Republic of Estonia was recognized by Western powers, who refused to view occupied Estonia as being legally part of the Soviet Union - The Restoration of Estonian independence). -- Myzz 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CIA - The world factbook states following: ... Estonia attained independence in 1918. Forcibly incorporated into the USSR in 1940 - an action never recognized by the US - it regained its freedom in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. -- Myzz 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this was an article about a historical period, I would not have marked it for deletion. It is an article claiming to be about "a short-lived country". No such country existed at that time.--Alexia Death 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look above. This is not about a political issue. It sais to be about a country. No such country existed.--Alexia Death 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree with this view. The majority of Estonians (and the ones proposing deletion) however disagree. They see this as part of the illegal Soviet occupation (and thus "nonexistent") with no continuity with the post 1991 republic. If I was more handy with wiki-family trees I could draw pictures of all the different ways legal continuity between these republics can be seen to flow. When we have multiple interpretations, we should not try to squeeze everything in one POV article (as in Soviet occupation of Romania or Occupation of Baltic states), but instead split the subject into several articles, so that each separately can be covered in a NPOV manner, presenting all possible interpretations. If you start merging this material into something else, you end up supporting one POV. -- Petri Krohn 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating legally nonexistent countries is also pushing a POV. If this was handled as a hitoric period and not a pseudo country Id have no problem with it.--Alexia Death 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Petri Krohns attempts to push his POV using these articles in the Bronze Soldier talks made us discover that this article exists does not make the AFD request made in bad faith. The AFD request its an attempt to fix an error that has already mislead someone.--Alexia Death 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia (this is the official legal construction recognized by most countries of the world). So we have to distinguish between them some way. The article under this title could serve to this purpose. So the content of the article should be slightly different. Indeed it wasn't a distinct country. Andres 12:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but Wikipedia practices for resolving such ambiguities are different. Digwuren 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since you seem to have learnt so much in the three days you have been on Wikipedia, tell me: if the pope finally decides that there is no such thing as purgatory, do we delete the article on it? After all, your only argument seems to be that we now know (the Estonian parliamnet having stated so, and the EU acquiesces) that there was no such country? --Pan Gerwazy 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More