Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish Lithuania

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 no consensus‎ to do anything. Merging or renaming or anything similar can be explored on the talk page of the article subsequent to this discussion finishing. Daniel (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Lithuania

[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)

The article essentially repeats what is already said in Union of Kėdainiai. Besides, the very use of the term Swedish Lithuania is WP:FRINGE, occurring only in Kotljarchuk. It is also incorrect in principle because Lithuania was not incorporated into Sweden, but some of the nobility entered into a personal union with Sweden. The article generally rubs against WP:HOAX. Marcelus (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. Marcelus (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice User:Cukrakalnis made the same argument just now at Talk:Swedish Lithuania#The article name. For myself, not having reviewed the sources yet, I'll say that I am partial to articles on former administrative divisions or concepts (ex. Russian partition), but the problematic name of this article is, well, problematic. Perhaps the term is a translation of something else? I note this article exists on several other wikis. On lt wiki it is "Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657)" (Lietuvos_Didžioji_Kunigaikštystė_(1655–1657)). Swedish occupation of Lituania could be another term to consider (and or redirect). There may be something notable here (in the form of describing the functioning of Sweden-occupied/controlled GDL during that period, the brief-lived entity created by the Treaty and Union of Kėdainiai). But let's start figuring out how the entity was called; if Swedish Lithuania is not a comment name, the article should be moved to Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657). If I have time, I'll try to think more on whether this meets WP:GNG. Side note: Grand Duchy of Lithuania article does not even mention Kėdainiai; we are dealing with a pretty niche footnote topic here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article never says at any point that Lithuania was 'incorporated into Sweden'. It literally says that it's a protectorate of the Swedish Empire, meaning it's a separate political entity under the control of the Swedish, so the entire argument here is nothing more than a straw man.
2. Andrej Kontjarchuk mentions that Swedish-occupied Lithuania had a viceroy (Bengt Skytte) as well as a Swedish-inaugurated Lithuanian Advisory Council and no literature appears to be claiming to the contrary. If he's talking about some sort of an administration then clearly there was some sort of a political entity as well. Not everything needs to be spilt out.
3. I think that 'pretty niche footnote' problem is unreasonable given the importance of the topic in question: it was a brief period, during which the Swedish unsuccessfully tried to establish a permanent presence in Lithuania. Of course, it won't have many sources to go by.
4. There seems to be enough valid reasons for an article like Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth to exist, but not enough for this one?
SeriousThinker (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a terrible comparison, but note that Google Scholar search for PLRC gives about 40 hits; while the one for Swedish Lithuania, just two. I am sympathetic to the topic here and would prefer to see it saved, but we need more sources, including for the name of this entity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish-inaugurated Lithuanian Advisory Council and no literature appears to be claiming to the contrary, no literature mention existence of such a council, because... such council never existed, even Kotljarchuk admits that: Neither the act of the union nor the text of the public declaration had mentioned the Council (p. 143). Simply put, the royal governor (who was initially De La Gardie, not Skytte) was given 3 delegates from the 5 districts that came under Swedish rule to assist him. Statements such as the Council was planned as a provisionel government are unsubstantiated. This council did not include any of the Radziwiłłs or any bishop. Marcelus (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All articles o other Wikipedias were created by the same user. I have checked several books on Lithuanian history, mostly by Lithuanian authors, none of them distinguish this period in a special way, nor do they write about "Swedish Lithuania" as a separate entity. All of them treat the Union of Kėdainiai as an important event, but one with short-lived and essentially insignificant consequences. Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We are dealing with an entity that did exist and whose existence is proven in one way or another by many reliable sources (all sources talking about Union of Kėdainiai prove the existence of this political entity). As @SeriousThinker already said, we have articles that deal with even non-existent but possible unions from a similar time period, so I refuse to say that an actual union that did exist does not deserve its own article. We should also remind ourselves that events that might hold significance for one group of people might be irrelevant for others and so it seems to me that this event is generally more important for Lithuanians than for Poles (unsurprisingly so, because this concerns only Lithuania and not Poland).

However, just like @Piotrus wrote, I would change the name to e.g. Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657) or something similar.

BTW, this is mentioned in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania article in the following sentence, so it's clearly not an irrelevant event:

In 1655, Lithuania unilaterally seceded from Poland, declared the Swedish King Charles X Gustav as the Grand Duke of Lithuania and fell under the protection of the Swedish Empire. However, by 1657 Lithuania was once again a part of the Commonwealth following the Lithuanian revolt against the Swedes. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Let's be honest, the existence of an entity called "Swedish Lithuania" is mentioned only by Kotljarchuk. Other sources say that some Lithuanian lords, headed by Janusz Radzwiłł, concluded a union with Sweden on behalf of the entire GDL on October 20. And there is already an article about it on Wikipedia: Union of Kėdainiai. So there is no need for a separate article with essentially the same content. Marcelus (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference though. No article makes it seem as if there was no entity to speak of and the treaties never had any sort of true impact when, in reality, they did, albeit it was short-lived. There's definitely a similiarity problem here but it doesn't mean that the article itself has no purpose. Overlapping information on Wikipedia is not an unusual thing either. When we make distinctions, such as List of monarchs of X country and List of heads of state of X country, the information can be fairly redundant but they exist because they focus on different things.

In addition, I would say the blame for similarity should be placed on the Union of Kėdainiai article as well because it covers more than it should — its main focus should be more on the negotiations and content of the treaty itself whereas Swedish Lithuania (or Grand Duchy of Lithuania) should focus more on partition of territories, actions of the administration and military feuds. In his book historian Adolfas Šapoka writes in greater detail about the policies of Magnus Gabriel De Le Gardie while governing, Lithuanian resistance and the Swedish defense in Lithuania — I'm not sure that Union Kėdainiai is a go-to article for such information I was considering publishing at some point. SeriousThinker (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main go to article is Deluge (history). Swedish Lithuania is basically third article on the same topic. Also it makes wrong impression as if Lithuania was established Swedish territory (compare Swedish Livonia), which defnitely wasn't. Marcelus (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a wrong impression though? According to Kontjarchuk, that's exactly what happened — Lithuania was established as a Swedish protectorate (they established themselves as a protectorate of the Swedish Crown). In addition, an article in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia also clearly states that Lithuania was a Swedish protectorate (Lietuva tapo Švedijos protektoratu — Lithuania became a protectorate of Sweden). SeriousThinker (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this, the name discussion is impeding the more AfD-relevant content discussion. It does read as if there is heavy overlap. What is the subject/scope of this article, and how is it distinct from the Union of Kėdainiai article? (Not that two overlapping topics can't be well-covered in one article, but that's a possibility that requires two subjects in the first place.) CMD (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Union of Kėdainiai which covers exactly the same material. They use completely different sources, so that this is a clear case where the appropriate solution is a merger, but this will need to be undertaken by someone who knows the subject and the sources, rather than by a closing admin. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 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.