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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article just appears to be a map gallery. Although I like the pictures, it is by no means an encyclopedic article—it doesn't even have a single paragraph in it. —Khoikhoi 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Might I add: what the hell does "border history" mean? Dahn 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless it is expanded it's pointless for its own article, "border history" means what it says, the history of a countrie's boarders, as they changed due to war and such. Pixelanteninja 00:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SM247 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean up or Delete. It seems to be somewhat notable to Romanian history, but the different maps make it confusing. If someone can find a way to make it less of a clump of crazy pictures, I'll give my vote to keep it, if not, get rid of it. Sens08 01:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree it's bad in its current state, but the topic is plenty notable and verifiable. ScottW 01:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ScottW. I guarantee within a week it will have plenty of text; the Romanian portal is very active. Teke 02:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable for Romanian history. Could stand a bit of Clean up, though, but that's not a good enough reason to delete it. I suspect TKE is right; give it a month or two and the article will probably improve. --BrownHornet21 02:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --ManiF 03:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable topic. --Terence Ong 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just becuase there is no explanation of the pictures, doesn't mean this shouldn't exist. Tobyk777 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but explanation for the should be given quickly. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all,
  • or include text and keep only the images depicting the situation after Romania was created (19th century), otherwise the title is misleading.
  • or change the title to "former states and administrative units on the territory of present-day Romania" or something similar, and include an academic quality text including Visigoths, Celts, Huns, Kumans, Magyars, etc. --KIDB 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be shown that the article can be cleaned up and more text included, such as more detailed reasons as to the changes. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 09:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopaedic at present. However, I will change my vote if the cleanup is carried out satisfactorily. Vizjim 10:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sequence of maps makes perfect sense to me. Clear, interesting and definitely encyclopaedic. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikimedia Commons --Yakudza 10:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeping toghether all maps linked with a country or territory is welcomed however I vote for deletion until the title is changed to something more appropriate --fz22 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Evolution of the territory is naturally already present in History of Romania and sub articles Dacia, Roman Dacia, Romania in the Dark Ages, Romania in the Middle Ages, Early Modern Romania, National awakening of Romania, Kingdom of Romania, Romania during World War II, Communist Romania, Romania since 1989, where maps are or can be related to historical events. On the other hand, the perspective is different. I can't decide between delete and keep. If the article is kept, please consider moving to a less confusing title such as Romanian territory through history, and at the very least write an introduction). Equendil 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up, rename might be wise, whatever. JeffBurdges 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it could definitely become encyclopaedic with a bit of clean-up Trebor 11:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, great maps, just needs a clean up. --Guinnog 12:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Romania, it's borders and the history thereof is clearly notable. Markb 12:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and use the maps as useful illustrations to other historical articles. Zello 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Some information is more easily conveyed by pictures. Having them together tells a story; sending them into separate historical articles would not. These pictures would create clutter and size/scrolling problems anywhere they might be merged to. Agree that it needs somewhat more introduction. Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since whatever useful it contains belongs to the numerous articles on the History of Romania. KissL 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article might be a map gallery at the current moment, but this only mean that we have to improve it, not to delete it. More text should be added to explain maps, and then article would be decent one. PANONIAN (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. Also vey hard to reach (links only from talk pages, wiki logs and things like that). Anonimu 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article, move pictures to Commons and create a page or category there for them; add links to the Romania or History of Romania article. – Alensha 寫 词 15:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clean up, possibly rename, but the information is useful and the topic seems reasonable. - Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Don't delete what can be fixed, expanded and turned into a decent article. --Zoz (t) 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment exactly what Zoz said. Teke 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wikimedia Commons, since it's just a map gallery. 69.118.97.26 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, if someone comes back and writes an article then good Crazynas 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep change title, and clean up. It certainly needs text, but maps are a great way to convey information. This would be a useful adjunct to History of Romania.--Pastafarian Nights 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good layout of maps, and definately needs to be split from an article. Maybe rename to something more intuitive, and make sure it is linked from History of Romania. Aguerriero (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , it is a picture gallery and not an article. Luftburger 20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - currently not useful, but certainly a significant topic. fel64 23:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of the pictures really belong in History of Romania, which needs more meat to it. This is redundant with that. Grandmasterka 01:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean up-although it is a "picture gallery" for the moment, I think that it is a good start for creating an article. We should keep this and expand on it. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs to be cleaned up and have more info to go along with the photos WCX 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. BODI
• Delete, agree with KIDB. Olessi 18:25, 3 June 2006 (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.