Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of democratic states

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. No clear consensus for redirect. Krimpet (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of democratic states

Two reasons for deletion: one, it's somewhat redundant now that we have Freedom House's list of democratic states. Two, the definition of a democracy is endlessly controlversial. For instance, just looking at this list I can see the following countries that one could seriously argue are not democratic: Algeria, Armenia, Chad, DR Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Russia, Singapore, Uganda, Venezuela, Yemen. Conversely, one might wonder why Afghanistan, Benin, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Solomon Islands and Tanzania are missing from the list. The point is, this can go back and forth forever, at least without some sort of standard for "democratic". Until that emerges, though, let's just keep the Freedom House list. Biruitorul 00:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Freedom House list. YechielMan 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this the wrong way around? We should have our own list.--Dacium 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - perhaps, but using what standards? Our list did use Freedom House until two days ago, so I am open to compromise on this point. Biruitorul 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freedom House list. I think having the source's name right in the title would prevent users from adding countries based on original research and perhaps national pride. The definition of "democracy" is not set in stone. --Charlene 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Jmlk17 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It would be nigh-on impossible to keep this list NPOV. I would oppose a redirect to the Freedom House list, as to some extent that could also be viewed as POV and an endorsement of their list as to what consititutes "democracy". --RFBailey 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such a list is akin to someone having a list of great songs. It is inherently POV. I don't think the Freedom House's list of democratic states is really any less POV. It is a judgment based on their own subjective criteria. Therefore a redirect doesn't work for me. JodyB 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "without major flaws in their elections" is a POV already. MaxSem 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect I agree with YechielMan. This should redirect to Freedom House's list of democratic states. Strange that it didn't do this before. If it had, we could avoided this. mako (talk•contribs) 14:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure that a redirect to the Freedom House list is appropriate, either, as it implies some kind of "official endorsement" of their list by the Wikipedia community. Not to mention it has 0 sources, itself. Probably just a matter of someone pulling up the link and tacking it on there somewhere, but, it just seems bad form to suggest redirects to articles in poor shape themselves. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and as unsourced WP:OR. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect per RFBailey. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted, maybe we should change the name to "list of multiparty nations without major election flaws". I just made the standard for a nation to be on the list to having no major flaws in their elections, which would be little or no election fraud. QZXA2 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strictly speaking, a Republic is not a true Democracy. --Infrangible 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Changing the title as suggested isn't going to help, as "major flaws" is an inherently POV term (what might be a "major flaw" to me might be "how we do business here" for at least one country a few flying hours from me which will remain nameless). Redirecting isn't a great idea either, since I'm not convinced that the list people are suggesting it be redirected to is a great idea for an article as is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.SlideAndSlip 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: changing the title as suggested by User:QZXA2 would not improve this article's case for staying; after all, what is a "major flaw"? Some might argue that what happened in Florida when George Bush was elected was a "major flaw" in that system. By all means keep the Freedom House list, as it indicates whose POV is being used. But that should be balanced by the existence of similar lists produced by other organisation (e.g. Amnesty International might have one, and there are probably lists produced by various governments). I'm also amazed this page has taken so long to reach AfD: it's been around for over two years! --RFBailey 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: if we do find other lists, then I'd say we should delete FH, move that here, and put the other lists in this article too. After all, we don't want one article for each separate list! Biruitorul 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: maybe, but until such a time, this one should go and the FH one should stay where it is, so that it does exactly what it says on the tin. --RFBailey 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect/Salt title, per nom. Dahn 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Freedom House's list, which is the standard one for this topic -- per nom, and many others. Turgidson 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: on what basis is, or should, Freedom House's list be "the standard one for this topic"? Their list is inherently POV. I'm not saying their POV is wrong necessarily wrong, but it's still a point of view nontheless. --RFBailey 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Far as I know, Freedom House is the premier organization putting out such a listing, see Freedom in the World. POV or non-POV, it's the yardstick by which all other listings are measured against. Other candidates are listed at Indices of Economic Freedom; see also List of indices of freedom. We're not talking absolutes here: WP merely reflects the reality out there, and the reality is defined by the existing indices -- and we're talking about listings put out by well-established, reputable organizations, based on sound methodology. Am I missing something? Turgidson 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your reply doesn't really answer my question. On what basis are Freedom House "the premier organization putting out such a listing"? Why should their list be a "yardstick"? Prior to a couple of days ago I'd never even heard of them, but from what I've read since then, they appear to be a predominantly US-centric organisation. Please remember that Wikipedia is an international project, and lists with other perspectives are also needed. --RFBailey 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What can I say, the links I put up above are the ones I know of in WP. If you know of other organizations that put out similar lists of comparable recognition, go ahead and let us know. In the meantime, I'll go with what WP has, which looks good enough to me. Turgidson 23:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Before we get side-tracked abouts the merits or otherwise of Freedom House, I should reiterate what I'm arguing for. In principle, "List of X" should never redirect to "some organisation's POV list of X", especially a US-centric one (or, for that matter, a UK-centric one, a Japan-centric one, or a France-centric one, etc.). That could be construed as an endorsement by Wikipedia of that POV. --RFBailey 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, perhaps you could AfD the FH list so we can see what happens. Biruitorul 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As I've stated above, I don't have a problem with keeping the FH list, as it is quite clear whose POV it has. The issue I have is that we shouldn't redirect to it from List of democratic states: the presence of the redirect is what implies the endorsement, not the fact that the FH list exists. --RFBailey 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, OK. Biruitorul 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming this list to "list of nations with no reported election fraud"? QZXA2

I'm not convinced that that's a particularly encyclopedic topic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect per RFBailey. JPD (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:17, 4 May 2007 (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.