Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shortest-lived sovereign states

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 delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the nominator's reasons for deletion, or in the case of AlessandroTiandelli333's opinion, have been convincingly rebutted. Sandstein 14:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

List of shortest-lived sovereign states

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

List of shortest-lived sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This page should be deleted because:

1) This page lacks notability. Specifically there is a lack of reliable sources indicating that the topic of "shortest-lived sovereign states" is notable, instead the only sources that can be found listing "shortest lived states" are blogs or similar non-reliable sources for this topic (e.g., HowStuffWorks.com). See WP:LISTN.

2) This page is the product of original research. There are no reliably-sourced list inclusion criteria (see WP:LISTCRITERIA), nor can any be produced because of the lack of notability of this subject, instead the editors have decided their own criteria. Few references are cited, none of which are both reliable sources for the subject under discussion (e.g., TASS is not an RS for Russia's annexation of the Crimea) AND state the length of existence of the state quoted in the article. Looking at the list, it appears that in most (all?) cases the editor has selected a date of creation, and a date of dissolution, and then measured the time between these points, without a reliable source indicating that these were the correct dates and this was the correct length of existence of the state. As a case-in-point, the Belarusian Democratic Republic is included in the list, but this still exists as a government in exile - so on what basis has it been included? In many cases it is doubtful whether a sovereign state really was created (e.g., brief rebellions, puppet states, states created purely for the purpose of annexation, states declared but with no evidence that the declaration was acted on).

3) The information on this page is not verifiable, since it is not supported by reliable sources. See WP:V FOARP (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weak delete. At this point, I agree with the nominator, but the material is fascinating and I know that some of the information is essentially correct. Surely editors who have a better knowledge than I of where to look for sources could find some reliable sources. I hope this nomination will lead to more work being done on the article. Bduke (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as it is full of original research, and uncited for most of that. I brought this up on the article's talk page a few weeks ago, and there has been no reply or effort to resolve the issue. I also find it problematic as it doesn't define what criteria are used for "widely recognized" and "limited recognition" in the article, nor do I understand the point of including states that apparently have "o recognition." Kaiser matias (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree with Bduke. The nomination makes sense, but I like having a list of the shortest-existing countries. As long as more reliable sources are found, the list could be saved and revamped. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• comment - Am I right in saying that if reliable sources cannot be found then you support deletion? It has had a header saying that reliable sources were needed since 2014. I have looked for reliable sources and found only blogs and other non-reliable sources, so have others. And remember, reliable sources are need not just for individual items in the list, but also to demonstrate the notability of the list, and to support its inclusion criteria. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete A long list with almost no sources, means that the information is unverified. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I get the WP:INTERESTING votes, but I find it interesting only insofar as it is accurate, and in the absence of reliable sources per WP:GNG, we have no reason to assume that it is accurate.

The article has over a hundred entries and only five references. Only four entries are sourced in any way, and none is sourced according to policy requirements. Even if we accept that they are all states and all existed for the periods given (given that the article makes no attempt to define what a "state" is or how to determine the start and end dates), there's nothing to say that these are the shortest-lived sovereign states in history. This would require some sources that actually discuss the concept of short-lived sovereign states - realistically, independent external lists. No such sources are available. Kahastok talk 13:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree with Morriswa (Charlotte Allison).Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Same question to you: what if reliable sources can't be found? Do you support deletion in that case? FOARP (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GNG [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] If this is deleted then I will keep it on my own page because I think it is a good addition to Wikipedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

All six of those references are blogs and/or not RS for this subject and/or not about this subject but about a specific short-lived state or defunct states in general. This is exactly the problem highlighted in the reasons for deletion. Taking them in turn:

1) TheTravel.com is not an RS for history, the article you linked to is not about short-lived states.

2) The History.com article is from their blog and thus not an RS, and not about shortest-lived states in general (e.g., one lasted 14 years) but republics within the United States which may or may not have actually been independent/'sovereign'. Even if it were thought to be an RS and relevant, it takes more than this one list to substantiate notability and support inclusion criteria as the concept of short-lived states is not discussed at all, instead "significant coverage" is required. Particularly, some definition of what a "shortest lived sovereign state" is, how its length of existence is defined etc. is needed and none is provided.

3) The Conde Nast article is not about shortest-lived states, it's about Somaliand and describes it as existing for five days or fifty years depending on who you ask.

4) The Boingboing article is about Transnistria. Not relevant to the subject under discussion at all.

5) BigThink.com is a blog and thus not an RS, and the article is not about the subject under discussion, but about a specific state.

6) The AVA article is, again, not about the subject of shortest-lived sovereign states, but about a specific state. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2018 (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.