Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The lost European countries in the 20th century

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. J04n(talk page) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lost European countries in the 20th century[edit]

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

Essentially an essay. TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTESSAY. This reads more like a discussion of personal opinions the topic rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. OtterAM (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is an essay, and not even a good one (its text is very badly written and mostly unsourced - based on its amateurish content I don't even think Wikipedia has been used as a source). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay and unencyclopedic. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A repetitious essay that fails to understand succession of states at all, and it is almost impossible to read. Despite the possibility of good faith editing, and a genuine effort used to write it, moving to draft space would accomplish nothing. This is sadly not a notable topic. Ceosad (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete its an essay. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Ceosad. The fact that the article claims that Nazi Germany was a new country and was merely "theoretically announced as a looser" at the conclusion of World War II says it all about the totally amateur and unreliable nature of its content. This article is also surplus to the Former countries in Europe after 1815 article, and various other articles in Category:Lists of former countries. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to look into this further, but the fact that the article contains the word "looser" when it means "loser" makes it unbearable for me to do so. Why is it that this intensely annoyingly ignorant spelling has gained such traction on the Internet? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2016 (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.