Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Median Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 in the sense of "not delete." Whether to merge, redirect, rename this article, etc. are editorial decisions outside the scope of AfD. Sandstein (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Median Europe

Median Europe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A nonnotable geopolitical neologism. Not enough google hits to establish the meaning of the term. The article is original essay.
(belated vote: ) merge/redirect the referenced discussions about the nessesity of a new geopolitical entity into Central and Eastern Europe, an established term and long existing article. `'Míkka>t 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete I strongly urge people to accept and delete this original research article. --Marc KJH (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the comments above. Not notable, based on few and outdated sources and mainly original research. JdeJ (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article seems to be sourced and documented. Unless the sources turn out to be invalid, misinterpreted or somewhat wrong, calling the content an original research is a far stretch. Btw, Marc, who has been very active in edit wars in articles on geography Europe, was consequently blocked today, as it seems for not keeping the NPOV. Pundit|utter 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "seems" is a good word. The only directly relevant reference is from "CENTRE D'ÉTUDE DE L'EUROPE MÉDIANE". The rest is a hodge-podge of peripheral chat. Even with Centre d'etude we don't even know whether "Europe médiane" is "median Europe" or "middle Europe" or "Mitteleuropa" in English parlance. The discussed article is mostly a translation of completely unreferenced french wikipedia article, which is invalid source in many respects. `'Míkka>t 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, if it is a question of sources, I'd suggest clarifying it on the "talk page" first - it would be difficult to resolve this in an AfD voting... Pundit|utter 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although there appear to be no English language sources for describing a "Median Europe", I'm persuaded that there are geographers and political scientists in France who have defined a region of the continent as "L'Europe Mediane", and that it's not the same as "Mitteleuropa" or "Central Europe". This would be no less notable than Boswash, and perhaps more so, since I don't know of an organization that publishes studies about that geographical concept. Mandsford (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I fear some have been too eager to write the article to look into what it's actually is saying. Much of the ideas (not research, as there's very little research involved) was outdated already in the sixties. The term was coined immediately after WWII to describe the areas that had been independent before the war but now had fallen, or risked falling, under Soviet dominance. However, already in the late 50s, it was clear that Finland and Greece had remained democratic non-communist states whereas the other states became known as Eastern Europe. So all this article really proposes is an old term once used to describe the former communist countries in Europe. As only one person (Halecki) seems to have included Finland and Greece (in 1950) in the concept, their inclusion borders on original research; we know better now. So all we have here is an article proposing yet another name for Soviet-occupied Europe. That's why the article is unnecessary. JdeJ (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    On the contrary. I find what you write quite interesting. The article, though, should reflect what you have just described. Pundit|utter 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    The region is not Central Europe (which has different borders and is rather a cultural concept). It is not Soviet-occupied Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus?). Great majority of those states maybe "became known as Eastern Europe" but have never became Eastern European (cultural difference). The article précised why "Central and Eastern Europe" is not a correct term (if it is not clear, please write it on the talk page). On the other hand, post-Soviet, non-Russian states are a specific entity of today's Europe. If any above-mentioned definition is used to define them, it has to be incorrect. From my point of view it's not difficult to list the countries if we base on this criterion (post-communist, non-Russian), but I won't do it until reliable sources are provided (just to avoid original research). Its precise frontiers and sub-regions are differently defined thus I decided to present various options with citations. I think that Halecki should be mentioned as he was one of the first researchers who developed this idea, I have nothing against précising its today's accuracy. Montessquieu (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete, regretfully. Insufficient notability of the term and the article is a loosely compiled essay on the sublect of "central/middle/etc. europas". I understand and sympathize the explanations why this term may be useful. But the usage and notability is not sufficiently established. Only 108 unique google hits for "Median Europe", half of which are random irrelevant. What is more, in some sources the French term "Europe mediane" is translated as MittelEuropa and there is not enough evidence that French term is something sufficiently different. "Mitteleuropa" in GErman wikipedia is defined as Belgien, Bosnien und Herzegowina, Dänemark, Deutschland, Frankreich (ohne Französisch-Guyana, Réunion, Martinique und Guadeloupe), Italien, Kroatien, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Malta, Mazedonien, Monaco, Montenegro, Niederlande, Norwegen, Österreich, Polen, San Marino, Schweiz, Schweden, Serbien, Slowakei, Slowenien, Spanien (ohne Kanarische Inseln), Tschechien, Ungarn und Vatikanstadt. Mukadderat (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite, and preferably rename to Europe Mediane. Notability is not language-dependent; if the concept is notable in French, then it's notable. If it isn't clear that the concept is denoted by any existing English term, then it should have its own article. (But better to use the original name than invent an English one.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are clearly a number of overlapping definitions and terms. This article does a good job of distinguishing them, and the phrase/concept appears often enough that its notable. There is no really exact indisputable English equivalent. -- DGG (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Following comments were lost early in the discussion, as per this edit. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Which bit or bits are original research? Do you speak French? ChessCreator (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the use by NATO of the term is notable. Any original research should be removed. ChessCreator (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
now back to your regularly scheduled AFD...
  • Weak keep, but possibly move to Europe médiane per Kotniski's suggestion. If kept, the article should better explain what the countries of this region have in common and why they are grouped together. It should also say where and when the term was used. Is it used in contemporary English-language publications or was it only used in French texts in the 1950's, as JdeJ wrote? In the latter case, the term may be still notable, but the article should clearly indicate its limited, and possibly obsolete, use. — Kpalion(talk) 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked on the talk page to indicate which fragments are "original research", no response until now. The article is footnoted (almost every single phrase). 1950s - it's probably the first research (in English), but at that time it was named "East-Central Europe", the idea is now historical (today, East-Central Europe is often limited Eastern part of Central Europe). Other definitions are from 1990s and 2003. The article might be renamed to "Middle Europe" - two terms are in use and those who like to assess importance of articles by google hits should be satisfied. The term (Middle Europe) was also used by a professor from UK National Defence Minister’s Staff (here) and it's also defined there (page 8). Median/Middle Europe is not Central Europe nor Mitteleuropa, especially on French Wikipedia. Median/Middle Europe is a geopolitical entity, not a cultural one. Montessquieu (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I added some further readings, one of them ("Borders,Borderlands and Regional development in Median Europe" by N. Popa, Romanian professor of geography) is mentioned on the list of suggested readings in political geography prepared by the Commission on Political Geography (International Geographical Union) (see p. 11-12) Montessquieu (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia is East-Central Europe, not Central and Eastern Europe. I've never heard about Central and Eastern Europe in Polish. Montessquieu (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
pl:Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia translates literaly as Central-East Europe, with Central going first, before Eastern (hence, no Europa Wschodnio-Środkowa).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Central and Eastern Europe" is a fixed phrase in English to describe this region (btw, brings 2,6 million hits). I personally have not seen "East-Central Europe" in English, although it does exist (300 hundred hits in google). Pundit|utter 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"East-Central Europe" is commonly used, at least in social sciences (I'm surprised that this might be unclear). Usually "East-Central Europe" is Eastern (post-communist) part of Central Europe (see de:Ostmitteleuropa, there's a map and literature). Middle Europe is East-Central + South-Eastern Europe. "Central and Eastern Europe" is widely used, but it refers to post-Soviet states and often includes Russia. "Europa Środkowowoschodnia" in Polish usually refers to Middle Europe, South-Eastern Europe is almost not used at all (usually by foreign entities as a calque translation from English), see the website of the Institute of East Central Europe in Lublin (Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej) [1]. It is not Central-East Europe, Polish grammar differs from the English one and the word order is different. Montessquieu (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The term "East Central Europe" is often used by US researchers when talking about states between Germany and Russia (the same like Median/Middle Europe). "East Central Europe" is used to avoid incorrect term "Central and Eastern Europe" which would have to cover Central (with Germany and Austria) and Eastern (with Russia) Europe. See East Central European Center, Columbia University, The East-Central European Studies Program, University of Florida. The history and culture of East-Central Europe (in the German meaning of Ostmitteleuropa) is rather unknown (and neglected) in English-speaking countries partly for linguistic reasons, it's explained here. Montessquieu (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion please see Talk:Central and Eastern Europe#Suggestion of another article. `'Míkka>t 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to East-Central Europe; the NATO-sponsored research cited, which provides almost all the content in this article, uses "Median Europe" only on p. 12, as an off-the-cuff translation of Fernand Braudel's "l'Europe mediane", and otherwise opts for "Middle Europe", a neologism which it explicitly defines in terms very close to Oscar Halecki's "East Central Europe" (again p. 12), the current English term (I hate to do this, but for once: I say this as someone who teaches a university course on "European Identity"). --Paularblaster (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to East-Central Europe; maybe "Ostmitteleuropa" could be mentioned in the article (does the term have its English equivalent?) Montessquieu (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (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.