Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vatican and Eastern Europe (1846–1958)

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 . Aoidh (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican and Eastern Europe (1846–1958)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a random and unnecessary article. The chosen time frame appears to have been arbitrarily chosen. And the article leaves out most Eastern European countries. Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, and Europe. Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this article is questionable at best, especially considering its original creator had a tendency to create narrowly focussed articles or articles on synthesized topics. However, it needs to be considered in its original context, which was a superior if still incomplete article before abridgment (see this diff). ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Delete: Timeline here is inexplicably subjective and fundamentally flawed in regard to CEE modern history and there is no existing historiographical framework that would warrant this grouping, let along a separate article. It encompasses multiple different states (several of which are imprecisely labeled) over a long period of time with uneven coverage, confusing section titles (like what is "protest or silence"?) and makes absolutely no contribution to furthering knowledge on any of these subjects. Even if we take these papacies as methodological framework, the contents of each section make clear the coverage is just not there. When we get to Pope Pius XII there is basically no content at all. I also don't see any valid historical argument for why the Russian Empire (described as "Russia") would be included in the lead with ending year of 1918, so in the midst of the civil war, rather than 1922, which is when the Soviet Union was founded. Moreover, I don't understand why the Soviet Union would be excluded, even though Soviet satellite states (again, with wrong names and no sufficient explanation of major geopolitical shifts during these periods). I could keep going, but I don't think it would be a productive use of anyone's time here. Ppt91 ^talk 19:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify, I take the original context of the article into consideration; the lead still made no explanation for the grouping and ending with 1958 is odd, since the thaw begins in 1956 and Khrushchev dies in 1964, so the papacy of John XXIII should also be included if we are going down the "Eastern Europe" path. Again, no historiographical benefit. These relationships should be examined separately which has already been accomplished in relevant existing articles. Ppt91 ^talk 20:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe we need to speedily delete anything that's been around for 15 years... Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Fair point, may have gotten slightly overzealous, but I could not believe it has been there for 15 years. Will strike "speedy" to keep "delete" only. Ppt91 ^talk 01:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe the solution is to just remove the arbitrary (1846–1958) from the article's name? The general topic is likely notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point to it. Eastern Europe is a region mixed with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Atheists, Muslims and historically a big proportion of Jews. The Popes must have had very different approaches for different regions in every given period of time. Also, so far the article is constructed in a way that every pope is generally given a few paragraphs of info. Doing that with every pope is pretty ambitious. And if we don't do it, we will remain with an incomplete article which doesn't help the notion that it should be kept. Or your proposal could come together with a new scope for the article. But all of this seems like a lot of work for an article that is not really necessary anyway. Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Had more time to run through every aspect of this article (sourcing, edit history, etc.) and it has always been an amalgamation of SYNTH and other OR. The concept, if covered by and sourced to scholarly volumes, could actually become an article. However, the mostly arbitrary period of focus says to me that we should just blow it up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The period relates to the pontificates of a series of popes, but events are likely to have been much less driven by popes than by secular political changes in the countries involved. There appear to be a series of articles about Pope X and Country Y, to which this is trying to provide an overview, but it does not do this well. There may be a place for an overview article, but tieing it to papal reigns does not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2023 (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.