Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries and inhabited areas

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 Draftify. to allow creator time to work on this, but consensus is clear that it does not belong in mainspace at the moment. Star Mississippi 15:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and inhabited areas

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

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

In brief, this article is irretrievably OR.

The list claims to include "all entities with any amount of de facto autonomy and a permanent population", but it does not come close to actually doing so. If it did so, it would be so extraordinarily large as to be actively unhelpful (List of human beings, anyone?)

The article lists political entities based on a scattergun approach, using a number of criteria with no obvious connection between them. The criteria themselves are poorly-defined and not based on reliable sources. The list is internally inconsistent, treating parallel entities differently for apparently arbitrary reasons (e.g. listing some exclaves but not others, listing some autonomous parts of countries but not others). The fact that the list has ended up being called "countries and inhabited areas" - which could include just about anything - demonstrates this.

The only way of making the list consistent with policy would be to trim it down to a point where it is a content fork of an existing list like List of sovereign states and List of dependent territories. Since this is not a plausible redirect, deletion is appropriate in this circumstance. Kahastok talk 16:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not see this message, from the editor who created the article, until after I nominated the article for deletion. While I maintain that the article should be deleted, I think it's fair to assume that they won't be able to defend it during the current period. Happy to see this delayed if others think it appropriate as I would not want to seem to take any advantage of the earthquake. Kahastok talk 16:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - at first glance it does look like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH but I'm wondering if it is actually capable of being cleaned-up; it appears that the categories of entities on the page are all (or almost all) lists that already exist on en.wiki, so to some extent this is - or could be - an outline of other WP lists. I'm not sure that SYNTH or OR applies if the content being synth-ed already exists on WP. JMWt (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title does not reflect the content. The meat of the introductory sentences say it is a list of "countries and inhabited areas of the world by type or degree of self-governance. It incorporates all entities with any amount of de facto autonomy and a permanent population." The original title (which is still a redirect) was List of de facto autonomous states and areas which is at least more accurate than the current title. The first thing is all the sovereign states are included, well they are already at List of sovereign states and they are auto defacto and dejure so why are they in this list at all? I have an interest in Palestine so let's look at the treatment of that:

1) Firstly, it speaks about the UN system and notes that there are two UN observer states but then says "1 UN non-member observer state having both de facto and de jure sovereignty: Vatican City (administered by the Holy See). While the State of Palestine is a recognised de jure sovereign state (it is also a UN non-member observer state), it is not listed in this category for lack of de facto sovereignty."

"De jure sovereign state" is nonsense, a sovereign state is auto de jure and de facto and why would you want to exclude a sovereign state to begin with?

2) OK, so where is Palestine in the list? It is between 142 and 143 and described as a dependent territory of Israel, which is just OR rubbish.

3) Palestine is made up of two areas, Gaza and the West Bank and there is an entry for Gaza at 67 describing it as a de facto proto-state in Palestine.

What shall we make of that? A part of the State of Palestine which is described as a dependent territory of Israel is a de facto proto state. Eh? OR again.

I haven't troubled to look at any other edge cases besides Palestine, I fear what I might find. Any reader will be far better served by going directly to any of the constituent lists that properly describe the entries.

As to the unavailability of the List creator, I don't mind to wait a while for their return along with an argument for why this list should stay. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The items in the main list are incredibly inconsistent by including different types of territories, non-contiguous regions, and autonomous regions, and so-called proto-states. I see no benefit to combining these whatsoever and pages like List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent should be adequate. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely weird and useless duplicate of List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. Seems to be a recent stealth vanity page by a user who makes a lot of weird and useless vanity content. Dronebogus (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Comment guys have you read that I'm in the earthquake zone, I'm working with an international team with the UN here. I barely sleep and eat and we're working here really hard to save as many lives as possible. Please don't take advantage of it. And also please understand that the article is still a draft, read this I never had time to finish it. Just because something isn't finished doesn't mean it's OR or synth. Please don't make personal accusations Mr. Dronebogus about someone whom you've never interacted. I never have or had any CoI. I can barely keep my eyes open, to even write down the reasons of why I say Keep. Only when I get out of the zone. Good night guys and please be safe --Universal Life (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps give us a sourced one-sentence description of what the list is supposed to be, and how it is different from the other lists that we already have?

Bear in mind that the description in the article is clearly not correct. Even if we restrict ourselves to political divisions, "all entities with any amount of de facto autonomy and a permanent population" is far wider than the included entities section. There are over 35000 missing entries in France alone, in that French communes are political divisions, with an amount of de facto autonomy, normally with permanent populations.

Nobody argues that the list is OR because it "isn't finished". I contend that it is OR because it mixes together a number of different definitions to produce something that has not been published before anywhere else. And, insofar as the definitions are not OR, they are already covered by existing lists.

As I've said, I've no objection to this being postponed or held open a while longer than normal while you are unavailable - though note that this is not about you, it's about the article, and if others feel it has merit they will doubtless chime in. Kahastok talk 10:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also indicated above that I had no objection to waiting. You evidently did not read either comment before accusing editors of trying to "take advantage". As for "I never had time to finish it", that doesn't stack up, I suggested draftification previously at the time that the article was tagged as under construction and now the article is in mainspace, untagged. I don't think the article is salvageable so I still think deletion is the best route but a minimum solution would be draftification with a view to release when it is actually finished.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I absolutely respect what you are doing in the earthquake zone, but there is Wikipedia:No deadline and you don’t need to publish a half-baked draft, especially a redundant and confusing one that will be viewed by a lot of people because of its broad topic matter. Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give article creator more time to chime in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons given above. I have no objection to it being WP:USERFIED draftified to Universal Life's sandbox. Springnuts (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These apples should not be listed with those oranges. There's no logical reason to mash them together. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete, but only kinda. The list (at least how I see it) should become a list of (for lack of a better term) places such as nations that have the highest jurisdiction/power of its own area, regardless to the Montevideo Convention or any other requirements. I think this should definitely should a list we have on Wikipedia. The page as it is now is only kinda that in a very slopy way. Best case scenario we rewrite the page (I'm happy to help!), but the page as it is now is delete worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007Gtbot (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I read "nations that have the highest jurisdiction/power of its own area", I see a meaningless statement. Insofar as I can get any meaning from it at all, I see a proposal for a WP:POVFORK of List of sovereign states, that elevates rebel groups to the level of sovereign states.

OTOH, when I look at this editor's six total edits to Wikipedia, four of them involve putting the WP:FRINGE view that micronations are sovereign states (two on Liberland [1][2], two on Sealand [3] [4]) and one of the others is the edit above. So maybe "nations that have the highest jurisdiction/power of its own area" is intended to create a WP:POVFORK of List of sovereign states that elevates micronations to the level of sovereign states? Also possible. It might also be both. Point being that the definition is so vague as not to be useful for creating articles, and it could be used to create articles that are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't think of anyway the inclusion criteria for the list can changed so its notable and not be redundant. // Timothy :: talk 11:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Relist: Hi guys, I've literally arrived home less than an hour ago. For those who doesn't know, I was in the earthquake area. I've been in Hatay and Maraş for more two weeks, close to 3 almost, volunteering with many international teams for rescue and relief. With the help of my schoolmates, I've provided tents, sleeping bags, blankets etc. to more than 800 internally displaced persons in Hatay, among many other relief activities. I'm still trying to send as much help as I can. Most days I haven't slept more than 3-4 hours. And I can't even speak about the horrors I've seen there, worse than any postapocalyptic film you can see. I couldn't bring my laptop due to the conditions there (and the legit fear of being robbed by gangs). I've come back with fever and throat pain. Please let me rest and catch my breath for a moment. I had first become a WP editor back in 2008, I was a kid, but I grasped the core principles of WP very well back then, and even today I edit the WP with the same core principles spirit. I created this article with the hope of collaboration; I'm a molecular biologist and not a political scientist, so even though I might be knowledgeable, inquirer and passionate about many subjects; the way I worded the article may be is not the best. I second the words of 2007Gtbot above and I believe this article may be clearer to everybody within a very short time. I welcome all kinds of collaboration :) I remember also mentioning above that the article is still a draft. So, please let me catch my breath, list my reasons for keeping the article properly. And, within a week, the article can be much bettered and properly sourced. Thank you --Universal Life (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you already voted once. Kahastok talk 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is WP:USERFIED you will have lost nothing and can recreate it when and if the problems with the article have been addressed (however imo the article is unsalvageable, and you will more usefully put your efforts elsewhere). Springnuts (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to Draftspace If original author's reasoning is that the article is not ready, it should go back to Draft until it is ready. I would recommend that the Draft then go through RFC process. As others have mentioned, the list is either redundant, WP:SYNTH or incorrect. My only expertise is in the Myanmar regions, where Wa State is far from the only proto-state not the mention de facto controlled areas. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you know somthing is missing or wrong, fix it. One man can't be expected to know whats going on worldwide in every situation. If you know what it should say then make it say that. 2007Gtbot (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2023 (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.