Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania

1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania

1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete. Too short, there is no need to create a separate article for an eventual content that could be included in other already existing ones (e.g. Hungarian Revolution of 1848‎). The only reference is a Hungarian book and the article creator does not seem to be intereseted in the article any more(Iaaasi (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

• Keep I can appreciate the nominator's frustration on this type of article, and I agree that the article creator does not seem to have taken much of an interest in it. On the other hand, the killings in "Magyar Transylvania", a section of Romania with a predominantly Hungarian population, are a matter of record. [1], [2], [3]; and I would not have been aware of that chapter of history, but for the stub article and the nomination. Though I dislike stub articles, which could be informative with a few additional minutes of work, this would be WP:EVENT notable and a stub is acceptable for now. Mandsford 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note "a section of Romania with a predominantly Hungarian population" - that is false, Romanians were the majority in Transylvania (60% Romanians, 25% Hungarians in 1850) and it was a part of the Habsburg Empire in 1848, not of Romania. I don't see how you link are relevant here:
  

- link 1 is about the massacre of jews

- link 2 is about the Hungarian revolution of 1848 in general, and the word masacre is not related to the event in the book

- you did not show me a record of ethnic cleansing by Rom. against Hun.

Mandsford , your search is made with the words being indepedent. If you try 1848 "massacres in Transylvania" there are 0 results](Iaaasi (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

Try this one instead [4], referring to an extermination of the Magyar population in Transylvania, particularly in towns such as Nagyenyed (Aiud), Zalathna, Abrudbanya (Abrud), Korosbany (Baia de Criş, and Brad. The first link didn't come out as intended. And please don't start tossing words like "false" around either-- nobody is saying that Transylvania itself had a Hungarian majority. As to what was colloquially described as "Magyar Transylvania" (as opposed to "all of Transylvania"), Magyar is the Hungarian language term for Hungarian people. Mandsford 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/Keep (ec) The most important event of the 1848–1849 conflict was massacre at Aiud/Nagyenyed (8-9 January 1849), see Modern Hungarian society in the making: the unfinished experience, p. 102, The cultural aspirations of Hungary from 1896 to 1935, p. 180. A History of the Roumanians, p. 284. See also History derailed: Central and Eastern Europe in the long nineteenth century, p. 112 (massacre of Zlatna/Zalatna(i) - I assume that The British quarterly review, Volume 13, p. 30-31 refers to the same event). All the books/studies documenting the events are available at G-Books and it is just a part of what I found. The article needs responsible and neutral editing (the description of the situation, explanation of the historical background of the conflict based on reliable sources, etc.). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In the book you are talking about is it written about a single massacre not about massacres, so the title would be anyway incorrect. All the sources are talking about a single event, the Nagyened massacre, and the only thing that can be said about it is that 600 Hungarians were killed. Is it really neccessary to create a separate article for this sentence? (Iaaasi (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

In my previous comment I refered to the events/massacres in Nagyened and Zalatna and I presented more evidence to support my claims, not a single book. Please, read my comment again and check the literature on G-Books. Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary, Volume 1, p. 53 covers massacre in Abrudbanya, and History of the War in Hungary in 1848 and 1849 (Otto von Wenkstern, p. 156-159) contains broader information on the conflict (events in Korosbany, Brad and the previously mentioned towns of Nagyened, Zalatna and Abrudbanya). The book is linked above by Mandsford. [4]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per editor(Iaaasi). Just to add, Mandsford, please check you data, there are endless data which point to the population of Transylvania where the Romanians always represented the majority. You probably mixed the ruling people with the population. If Transylvania was ruled by Hungarians for a long time this doesn`t mean that there also live a dominant Hungarian population. About this massacre, since there is so little information in this article this could be easily added to the Hungarian Revolution of 1848‎ article. Adrian (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Adrian , we call the articles containing "so little information" stubs and they're perfectly legitimate, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but should we have a stub like this? I mean, if we follow this instructions blindly (for stubs) we could have more stubs than normal articles. With that logic, I could tare a part an article and to create 100 stubs, just because I could do that doesn`t mean I should. What I am suggesting is to delete this article and to add this info to the already existing article (Hungarian Revolution of 1848) - since there is already a normal article where this info is suitable. Adrian (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The question is: Is there enough material in the reliable sources to compile a stand alone article? I think there is sufficient information in the sources presented. Merging to Hungarian Revolution of 1848 could be an option, and Hungarians_in_Transylvania#Historical_background is another suitable place for the information, however, the stand alone article could provide a more detailed information about the context of the complicated situation in the region. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Somewhere in all the condescending lectures about the demographics of Transylvania and what percentage was Hungarian and what percentage was Romanian, the point is that civilians were being massacred in the course of a revolution. I'm not sure what's not notable about 600 people being murdered. Mandsford 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised to see a new administrator is some-king of a biased speaker position in this discussion. This is not the subject, but it is strange how you take what you think for facts (demographics of Transylvania) in spite all available data about the other nations`s percentage and then call it "condescending lectures". Adrian (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)