Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth: There is no information here that is not in that article, so I do not propose a merge.  You should delete that article and create a redirect.  Marcelus ( talk ) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Lithuania , Poland ,  and Ukraine .  Marcelus ( talk ) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose The article is about a different topic from the treaty article and I think that an article about a possible commonwealth is worthwhile, considering that similar articles like Franco-British Union exist.  Cukrakalnis ( talk ) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain how is it different if it literally describe the same events?  Marcelus ( talk ) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Treaty =/= Commonwealth itself.  The Maastricht Treaty is not the same as the European Union .  Cukrakalnis ( talk ) 12:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a state proposed in a treaty but nowhere else, and which was never actually created, has no importance beyond the treaty.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Jungleman's claim that this was proposed in a treaty but nowhere else is objectively false; it was a somewhat notable idea throughout the 1650s and was of later historical significance during the January Uprising .  This is clearly more tha just a one off idea.  — Knightof theswords 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Treaty of Hadiach : not enough to sustain a standalone article.  Owen× ☎ 17:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed merge target per Renata3 , Eluchil404 and nom.  Owen× ☎ 12:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Treaty of Hadiach - seems duplicative content.  Renata • 3 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge somehow.   The article is about a proposed constitutional arrangement that was agreed by the treaty, but never actually happened.   Accordingly this article should not exist.   The proposed target article coverts not only the treaty itslef but the surrounding circumstances.   Possibly some content of this article needs merging, which will leave a redirect.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Treaty of Hadiach .   This proposed state never came to fruition and gained no notability independent of the treaty proposing it.   There is not much to merge but no reason to lose any particular content that can be sourced.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  There seems to be a rough consensus that some of the content in this article should be Merged but several options on what the target article should be.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with merge proposition to Treaty of Hadiach Marcelus ( talk ) 09:43, 15 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.

Discussion outcome: merge