Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-existent countries
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 delete. per WP:SNOW JForget 00:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of non-existent countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-encyclopedic foundation: what is "non-existent"? The intro says "countries that only exist on paper", but does that mean fictional, proposed, former, irredentist/secessionist states? The title is too broad, the list has had minimal input in five years of existence, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how about reformulating it to apply to countries without territories? (ie, like countries of governments-in-exile that were annexed) 76.66.200.21 (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the title goes beyond ambiguity to downright incomprehensibility. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete to make this list non-existent. I'm sure there is already a home for this information in Wikipedia. How about Category:Proposed countries, Aspirant sovereign states, List of historical unrecognized countries, List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements, or List of extinct states, or List of fictional countries for starters? Location (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate. Abductive (reasoning) 08:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This content would be much better split between the pages or categories mentioned in Location's excellent comment. McMarcoP (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't emphasize enough that anything new is put on other pages, it needs to have citations to independent, verifiable sources. I can't see any encyclopedic reason for lumping real nations that are no longer in existence (such as the Republic of Texas) with nations that existed only on paper (Oz). Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. List with unclear inclusion criteria. I wouldn't think that the Republic of Texas qualifies as nonexistent. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonsense (I'm surprised no one else has argued this). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because what WP:NONSENSE refers to is gibberish and random keyboard strokes like "djaf;ljg". I wouldn't say that this is "nonsense"-- the author wanted to make a list of "non-existent countries" and then began to list examples of nations that could arguably be described as "non-existent" for different reasons. That reasoning does make sense, but most of us are of the opinion that the idea wasn't well thought out. There is a difference between "not sensible" and "nonsensical". Mandsford (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (delete and) make into a disambiguation page for the various articles listed by User:Location above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've clarified what can be included and am starting to add sources.--Auric (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm impressed by the history; you've been an editor since at least 2004 when you started the article, three years longer than I have, and probably longer than anyone else in this discussion. Still, don't you think that this information is, and would continue to be, covered better on the lists referenced under "See also"? I agree with Thryduulf that this would be better as a dab page, and that the adding of sources would be to the other lists. Mandsford (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, It probably would be better to simply merge the entries with the relevant other pages, but I hated to see it go.--Auric (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm impressed by the history; you've been an editor since at least 2004 when you started the article, three years longer than I have, and probably longer than anyone else in this discussion. Still, don't you think that this information is, and would continue to be, covered better on the lists referenced under "See also"? I agree with Thryduulf that this would be better as a dab page, and that the adding of sources would be to the other lists. Mandsford (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, why is an independent state for nine years included with proposed names for a proposed independent union of what's now part of New York City? If Texas can be included, there are no clear inclusion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This entry is about the Republic of Texas, not the state of Texas.--Auric (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Location. Lists already exist that adequately catalog the non-state states. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2009 (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.