Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European microstates


 * 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   keep. No consensus to delete. Discussions wrt rewriting or merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

European microstates

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There are several problems with the article, but the most serious is that it is not sourced in any way and the selection of six countries that are supposed to compose the "European microstates" is made by an individual Wikipedia editor. Two sources are used, but neither of them define these six states as "The European microstates". If countries were to be selected based on the two articles used as sources, this article would feature very different states than the ones in it. The main problem, thus, is the complete lack of any sources to support that these six states are the "European microstates". The article doesn't try to define the context. Is it size or population that matters? If it's size, then an argument could surely be made for including Luxemburg. If size matters, then Iceland is much smaller than Malta, yet only the latter is included. And neither Luxemburg nor Montenegro is that much bigger than Malta. I'm not trying to argue for the inclusion of Iceland, Luxemburg or Montenegro, merely pointing that there are definition issues that the article avoids. The relevant content found in this article is already found in articles such as Microstates, European states and of course the individual articles for each country. Given the complete lack of any sources identifying some states as "European microstates", I suggest that this article be deleted. It doesn't add anything to Wikipedia that isn't already there.JdeJ (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Economist writes about individuals who have declared small areas to be their own countries, such as Sealand. That is a very different topic from the content of this article.
 * GlobaLex lists eleven states, including Iceland, Montenegro and Cyprus.

Comment Ouro, the article you are thinking of exists already, and you'll find it at Micronation. It is an article dealing with entities such as Sealand and similar micronations. The title of the article we're currently discussing could not be applied to micronations as these are not independent and recognised, thus they are not states. As you say, titles should describe the content of an article and the content suggested by this title "European microstates" is not something that can be sourced.JdeJ (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The ultimate question is where this microstates criteria comes from, and if that designation is widespread enough to make it notable. I can't really figure out from the article where that comes from, and assuming it is invented by the creator, it's OR and a delete. If evidence surfaces that there's some established basis for it, I could be persuaded. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think there is enough widespread use of the microstates designation, including those six states, and also a widespread distinction between micronations and microstates. Which countries this includes might be open to some disagreement, but the general concept is notable. See Thomas M. Eccardt, Secrets of the Seven Smallest States of Europe, ISBN 0781810329 (specifically uses the term in reference to 7 microstates). There are others too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the article title is correct - there are entities such as microstates, small countries or city-states, but maybe the items included in the article are not necessarily those the title refers to. I actually expected to see Sealand in this article as well. In my opinion, this article is something closest to a list of countries, with some extended descriptions, but a bit poorly sourced maybe, and with the elements not chosen that well. Deletion is not the way to go here, rather a rewrite. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  09:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles are not their titles. Because one could envision an appropriate article under this title is not a valid reason to keep. In fact, deletion would encourage others to start the appropriate article, rather than be dissuaded by the non-notable one. Perhaps the title is an appropriate title of a plausible article, but we're not discussing that article up until the point you or someone else writes it. Note that I'm making a different point than if this were merely the issue of necessary improvements (although even the notion that inadequate articles should be kept because they could be improved is not official wikipedia policy, and is the topic of debate). Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand your reasoning. I understand that article titles !== articles themselves, but a title should appropriately describe the content and offer a very short summary of what to expect, and this seems not to be the case here according to some. If you feel that deletion would encourage other contributors to rewrite the article, to which after some thought I am inclined to agree, I am not going to stand in your way - but just note that I never used the word keep in my comment, I just said rewrite. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and I'm sorry for assuming too much. Like I said, if this term is being used correctly here the article should stay. I just can't find any evidence of that on my preliminary looks. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jdej, thank you for clearing this up for me. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 12:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is already an article for micronations so this can be a list for the ones which are located in Europe, lists are allowed in Wikipedia-- C D  17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I must admit that I don't see the logic in that. It would require a change in the title (Euroean microstates -> European micronations) and I fail to see the point of a list consisting of only six entries. There aren't that many micronations or microstates to begin with. And even if these problems were to be resolved, the fundamental problem of a lack of any source for which countries to include remains.JdeJ (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources exist. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Before is not a notability criteria nor is it any of the other article inclusion criteria. It's not relevant to an afd discussion, other than to suggest nominators attempt to rehabilitate articles, or at least point out their potential before. This nominator provided a detailed explanation, and obviously did some research before nominating. The findings you've linked to are relevant, and should be considered, but it's not appropriate to chastise this nom. This is a perfectly appropriate nomination. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that the nominator has done any research beyond reading the article. He is perhaps unfamiliar with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but WP:IMPERFECT (despite being in contention as to whether or not it's an official policy) is an editing policy, not a notability policy, which is the touchstone of any afd discussion. Also, if in fact article content policy is relevant to an afd, then WP:PROVEIT, which is unquestionably policy, places the burden on those attempting to introduce information, not those removing it. It would be inappropriate to place that burden on an afd nominator, forcing them to prove a negative on a topic they know little about. Shadowjams (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with microstate. Definitely don't delete, this is useful information. Macarion (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge is a good compromise. It sidesteps direct issues as to which countries are technically microstates too. Shadowjams (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a merge could be an option. While it has been shown that some sources exist, not one of these sources identify these six countries as "The European Microstates". So while it is obvious that there are Microstates and that some of them are situated in Europe, it doesn't appear to be possible to select six states in particular and claim that these six, and no other, states make up the The European Microstates.JdeJ (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.