Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordic Estonia

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. Sandstein 11:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Estonia[edit]

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

This article seems to be a ~~WP:NPOV~~ WP:CFORK of Estonia. There does not appear to be any valid reason for it to stay as a standalone topic. NoGhost (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, I meant to imply that the article is WP:POINTy, not neutral. --NoGhost (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Gut or Merge. The topic of Estonia being defined (or not) as a Nordic country is interesting, and possibly notable, through I am not sure of that. The article however is 90% off topic. We could gut it to few sentences referenced to [1] and [2], or just WP:TNT this. PS. Those 1-2 sentences could also be merged to Nordic_countries#Estonian_integration and we could redirect this term there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename and edit. I believe that the question of whether or not Estonia is considered a Nordic nation is a notable one with enough evidence in both directions to create a reasonable, unbiased article discussing both arguments in an encyclopedic matter, well in line with WP:GNG. However, in its current state, the article is poorly-named and not well-written and it is easy to see why it appears to be in line with deletion policy. PenaltyCard (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as I allready noted on the talk page the topic is clearly notable - attempts to rebrand Estonia as a Nordic country have been going on for like twenty years, there are prominent Estonian politicians backing it, seems there are plenty of supporters of the idea among ordinary Estonians as well and this movement has at least some recognition outside the country. Content quality and NPOV problems alone usually are not enough reason to delete an article. Exploring this in other articles would be problematic, because it isn't really central issue to any other topic, but there are a lot of things to cover, so there is high chance of going off topic and giving too much attention to what is a minor side issue in scope of other articles. I agree the comment above that the article name could be different, in addition I think it would help if lead section would explain what the topic is more clearly ~~Xil (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Improve The article reflects the phenomenon and movement of the Estonian government towards being defined as a nordic country. During the new independence period, this phenomenon has been happening for nearly two decades, at least since 1999. In the previous independence period, it was pursued since 1918. This is a specific phenomenon that is happening in the estonian government across different party lines, is well referenced and deserves a separate mention on Wikipedia. Also, this article has already previously been approved by a Wikipedia admin. For example, the current Estonian president describes Estonia to be in the "Nordic Benelux" region, the previous president has written several articles on why Estonia should be considered a nordic country. The prime minister of Estonia defines the country as a nordic, etc. It doesnt matter whether someone thinks estonia is nordic or not. This article reflects the phenomenon of the discussions happening. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Edit: GUTTED I deleted a bunch of text which another editor had put in and had nothing to do with the article. That text probably also caused the nomination for deletion. That text is currently gone. I have no issue with the rewording of the page title. But the content and topic itself is both notable and relevant. For example the google search for "eesti põhjamaa" returns 186,000 results. One of the issues is the fact that this is mainly an intra-estonian discussion and has not reached the international media, so there isn't that much content in english about the topic. There is 20 years worth of content in estonian though. It is a large-scale, specific topic which does not fit into the "Estonia" article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So when google search "australia nordic countries" returns me over 22 million hits, should I conclude that Nordic Australia is even more notable and relevant topic? And about being "large-scale" topic and "20 years worth of content in estonian" compared to English. You have wrote about this Nordic Estonia idea a lot in different articles and talk pages, but for some reason not presented very many reliable sources to support it, not in English nor in Estonian. So how can we believe all those so far not mentioned Estonian reliable sources really exist? Minnekon (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the results for "eesti põhjamaa" in google, they're all about the nordic identity, at least the ones on the first three pages. I just did your "nordic australia" search and the results are completely different. They're not comparable. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There are also many misinterpretations by the creator of the article and most of that stuff would be better represented in Estonia's article. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but (re)define as article about Nordic identity of Estonia and remove off-topic content or merge relevant parts. Main problem of this article has been missing clear definition of topic and therefore piling up whatever material that makes any kind of connection between Estonia and Nordic states (or even only one Nordic state). This article has future only if we agree what exactly should it cover and that choice is based on reliable sources (meaning no original research and deciding on our own for example that certain sort of integration takes place and choosing events and stats to prove it). Out of all those different topics the question of Estonia as a Nordic state seems most promising as subject of the article - it is somewhat discussed even in few academic papers. On the other hand, that article would still remain rather short and maybe redundant, if all its content could be easily presented in articles Estonia and Nordic states. Minnekon (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: concurrent discussion at Talk:Nordic Estonia seems to favour keeping article and renaming it Nordic Identity in Estonia. --NoGhost (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been renamed to Nordic Identity in Estonia as per talk page consensus SørenKierkegaard (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue of whether or not Estonia is a Nordic nation is not entirely clear. So an article clarifying the issues in an unbiased way would be very helpful. The current article should be improved, rather than deleted. User Ial pointed out that "attempts to rebrand Estonia as a Nordic country have been going on for like twenty years, there are prominent Estonian politicians backing it, seems there are plenty of supporters of the idea among ordinary Estonians as well and this movement has at least some recognition outside the country." This would be an excellent area to cover. Dean Esmay (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion which is at a consensus, i think. --do ncr am 08:14, 20 April 2017 (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.