Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-sovereign nation

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 no consensus. There is a slight preference for deletion, but this discussion is also tainted by the fact that the nominator was a sock. Given that, no prejudice against speedy renomination. Legoktm (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sovereign nation

[edit]

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

Non-sovereign nation (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)

original research, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-sovereign countries. Privybst (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Privybst (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a disambiguation page that disambiguates nothing. Reads like a dictionary entry. GoldMiner24 Talk 17:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with GoldMiner24 in that I see "non-sovereign nation" as an ambiguous term that can mean any one of the three types listed. But I don't see this as a good disambiguation page, but rather a future set index type of page with examples and footnotes. My first notion would be to return the page to @PBS: as a draft set index page. I note the frequent occurrence of the phase "non-sovereign nation and colonies," even though type III as listed are basically colonies. The authors I looked at did not agree on what was included or excluded by the phase "non-sovereign nation" or "non-sovereign state". As I mentioned in the other Afd, see Alagappa's "Definition of Nation, State and Nation-State" in "The Future of East Asia"(2017) for the difficulties in definitions in this area. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia it is not as if this article is preventing any other article from existing and it is a subject that could be expanded upon. There is no time limit on developing and article (see WP:NOTIMELIMIT) add a {{stub}} template to the bottom of the page if that is though to be necessary. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • An important point is the confusion that exists over a sovereign state, state that province in English. This is because of the early historical of the Unites States (sic) of America. If the colonies had become independent colonies on seceding from the Great Britain, then there would have been 13 new [sovereign] states, but they chose to federate into one [soverign] state. Had named themselves "provinces" of the United Provinces of America (like contemporary United Provinces of the Netherlands) then much of the confusion would not exist in English, and in 1945 the United Nations could have been named the United States. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:GoldMiner24 do you dispute that the article can be developed further or do you think that the current bullet points can only ever remain bullet points, because I think that this is a very relevant topical issue (Ukraine and all that). For example did you know that India was a member of the League of Nations but not at the time a sovereign state? The League of Nations was set up before the dominion status was granted to India. Indeed it was only during the First World that the other British dominions became fully sovereign states. This sort of ambiguity existed for many states for example in the late 1900s and early 20th century the United Kingdom recognised Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet, but considered it independent enough to enter into international treaties (see for example the Simla Accord (1914)) -- it was not until Until 2008, the British Government's position changed and they recognised that China had full sovereignty over Tibet. The British position over Tibet is similar to that of the Untied States and Taiwan, where the concept of "suzerainty" fits neatly with the one China Policy of the United States government, although they do not use that term. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Nation. Not sure it's a particularly useful search term, but if consensus is that it is a useful search term, then it should direct to Nation which provides at least some information on the topic. CMD (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you say Some information but as the Nation article starts with "A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or society." it is confusing to equate "Non-sovereign nation" with nation. I am interested to hear you think your proposal fits in with my comments above this one. -- PBS (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Privybst see the lead sentence of this article "Depending on the context, the term non-sovereign nation, non-sovereign state or non-sovereign country, could mean" are you suggesting that if we move the article to non-sovereign state that would be Ok? For example the United Kingdom is a sovereign state that controls territory that contains four indigenous nations: English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh and three or four countries England, Wales (alternatively termed a province), Scotland and the disputed territory of Northern Ireland which is a country to some, to some others part of the province of Ulster and to yet others six counties. So linking to Nation does not solve that issue. -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how these questions relate to the disambiguation page at hand, their answers aren't dependent on the sovereignty (or lack of) of the various potential nations mentioned. CMD (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Chipmunkdavis This is not meant to be a disambiguation page it is meant to be a stubby page that can be developed into an article. You stated that "it should direct to Nation" but that assumes that there is a one to one mapping between "nation" and "non-soverign-nation" which is not so, this is why I asked the questions I have. You wrote above "You could add a bunch of adjectives in front of "nation", but the topic remains nations" So is the "United Nations" a organizations for nations or for Sovereign states? -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect don't require one to one mapping, they require that the redirect lead someone to a helpful page for the term they searched. Your various questions about how interchangeable these terms are highlights the usefulness of such redirects, which take readers to locations where they can learn more about these various terms. CMD (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Also, I'll mention that the nominator is yet another sockpuppet of Dolyn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 3 October 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/Non-sovereign_nation&oldid=1115876861"