Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-sovereign countries

Add links
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. Policy-based opinions are uniformly in favor of deletion. A list needs a consistent definition for inclusion, and such has not been supplied. The concerns about original research have not been resolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-sovereign countries

[edit]

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

List of non-sovereign countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no definition of a 'non-sovereign country'. Therefore such a list cannot exist, it is WP:OR. If there is a source that 'non-sovereign country' means dependent territory then I could redirect there. Privybst (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shortly after this list's creation, issues with it were raised on Talk:List of non-sovereign countries. They remain unresolved. Put simply, this list is a WP:SYNTH compilation of vastly different entities based on finding particular semantics in a source. (Two different semantics since "nations" were added to the list and are apparently different.) A month on from creation, not a single secondary source has been found for the topic. The phrase "recognised as countries" shows one of the key issues with this list, as there is no "country" status that can be recognised. The list misleading presents this term as a specific category of thing, when it's simply a term applied to some entities sometimes, and an arbitrary one at that. There is very little linking Indian tribes with Scotland. There is no reason with some British Overseas Territories are here and others aren't. That there is a Varied terminology subsection is odd, as that would apply to every entity on this list. CMD (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (or move/re-defined) . It's important to be clear about the two headings currently used in the article, "non-sovereign country" and "non-sovereign nations". Scotland for example is a "country' according to ISO and the tribal nations of the USA are referred to as "nations", both clear definitions.
      It may be more appropriate to discuss a potential re-definitions of headings or a move to "Non-sovereign states" as discussed in: https://www.thoughtco.com/country-state-and-nation-1433559 for example, rather than just deleting the entire page. Titus Gold (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Those are not definitions, those are names/labels. This page lacks any definitions. As for the link discussed (not that it appears to be that high quality a source), we already have articles for those topics at Country, State (polity), and Nation. Any rename of this article would face the same issue of SYNTH, the issue is not the title per se. CMD (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think Scotland belongs here. The way England, Scotland, Wales and perhaps Northern Ireland are called countries are not, outside of some international sports such as football, rugby and cricket, in the same way as the other cases listed. They aren't assigned ordinary CCTLDs, country calling codes or ISO codes, for instance. Nor do they appear on their own on most lists or tables. 116.92.234.154 (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Article is pure WP:OR, and is impossible to recreate without OR. As CMD says, the phrases defining the list, recognised as countries by their respective sovereign states and non-sovereign "nations" that are recognised as such either by their respective sovereign state or internationally are essentially meaningless. There is no "country" or "nation" status that exists in any sense that can meaningfully be applied internationally, except that of a sovereign state. The statuses of the entities in the list are not at all the same, while entities that do have the same status are not treated as parallel. It's a bit like making a list of Indians that includes both Mahatma Gandhi and Pocahontas, but excludes both Sacagawea and Srinivasa Ramanujan as insufficiently "Indian".
It is worth considering that there are many other entities called "countries", but they are generally different things in different places. For example, all States of Germany and all States of Austria are formally referred to in German as "countries" or "federal countries". For example, France has a concept of a "country" that is a small cultural region. All of these statuses are different. Essentially the only point of commonality between these entities is that some Wikipedian has found some document that happened to describe them with the word "country". Kahastok talk 13:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given this edit, I feel I should mention for the benefit of the closer that, while I have been contributing to the wider topic editor for many years, I was not aware of this article before I was pinged to this discussion. I am not aware of having had any other previous contact with the nominator. Kahastok talk 19:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've pinged two random editors who I've seen from the page's history have made major contributions to this topic for many years. Privybst (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the German language or the English language? Is there any evidence that German or Austrian states are called "countries" or "federal countries" in the English language? If we are to talk about other languages, what about Shikoku or any of the geographical regions in Japan which were ryōseikoku/​ritsuryōkoku? Why don't we focus only on the English language and related concepts in other languages such as the case of the pays d'outre-mer of French Polynesia? 219.76.18.205 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, because the article says nothing about requiring English, and second because in doing it your way the list is a list of anything that anyone has ever described using the word country in English. Which is even worse than the article as currently conceived, in that it adds a layer of systemic bias in favour of English-speaking countries on top. Kahastok talk 20:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about Chūgoku? 220.246.37.189 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from WP:SPA,
  • Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point.
  • Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus, and is therefore not an SPA.
  • Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Please consult the general test and the "who not to tag" section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation to the tagged editor — use with consideration.
  • A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose."
Many IP editors would have edited from other addresses within the same, similar or nearby ranges as well in other topics. In 219.76.18.205's case there are even edits in other quite unrelated topics recently from exactly the same address. Tagging without responding anything in substance only exposes your stature in this topic. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making any assumptions here. Per normal practice, I am highlighting the fact that we have 57 IP editors from Hong Kong with no substantial editing history commenting on this topic despite having no IP editors from anywhere else in the whole world. It is up to the closer what they make of the information. The templates merely bring this to their attention. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I am not an SPA. The tag added under my comment[1] was unnecessary and was indeed an apparent attack. You are already assuming something by adding the tag. 58.152.59.185 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC, which has reason 8: Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.. In particular this list relies upon WP:SYNTH because it relies on disparate definitions of what constitutes a country. Although some commentators above seem to understand a country to be co-extensive with a state, English usage has other definitions, and it is clear that there are countries that are not states, but incorporated in states, or in the purview of states. Nevertheless the definition of country varies and is often disputed. Sources in this article demonstrate the grey areas but do not prove these are countries. UK home nations are countries by one definition, and the source shows they have ISO country codes (which is not quite saying that the ISO recognises them as countries, despite what the page says). But different inclusion criteria are used for different entries and others (such as Texas per Peter Kingiron) are excluded arbitrarily simply because no one (much) calls them a country. Inclusion based on equivocal definitions of countries is WP:SYNTH and an attempt to limit the definition to one single definition would be WP:OR so I think this list is doomed to failure, and sadly must be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the countries which would likely belong to this list and therefore affected by the decision here. The so called "the same city" in question here is actually a territory which contains some other towns and villages with a total number of several million inhabitants. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And six separate individuals with no significant editing history just happened upon this page, within the space of three days, all from the same city, all making substantially the same argument, several of them explicitly referring to an old article that was converted to a redirect in 2008? Really?
It's pretty obvious what's going on here and there is nothing in any policy or guideline that requires that we pretend we were born yesterday. Kahastok talk 17:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, just for clarity these links are to things that describe entities that are not sovereign states as "countries". Most of them include entities like Hong Kong, that are not sovereign states but that are not on this list - a fact that rather demonstrates the issue here. I don't think anyone has denied that it is possible to describe "country" other than as a sovereign state. But, in my experience, there are as many mutually-incompatible notions of what belongs on a "list of countries" as there are people willing to argue that their notion is the only right one. And all of them are WP:OR because they're all based on what the individual's POV rather than lists produced by WP:RS. Kahastok talk 08:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw Puerto Rico, Gibraltar, Aruba and Greenland in those links too. Hong Kong just naturally stands out with its size of population larger than all of the rest combined, and e.g. much bigger size of economy. 220.246.37.189 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    — 218.255.22.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are country codes. And there's a reason why some are assigned a code and some aren't. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a List of ISO 3166 country codes. CMD (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also ITU (E.164, E.212), GS1, and NATO country codes, and CCTLDs, ICAO prefixes, to name some. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about, say, the EU Annex A5 list? Or the 1998 UN M49 list? 58.152.59.185 (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC) — 58.152.59.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Titus Gold: You'd have to stick with a specific meaning of the word nation, which is quite similar or almost identical as country, i.e., a term that refer those which are assigned country codes, but not the other meanings of that word. 1.36.63.143 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_non-sovereign_countries&oldid=1116821035"