- 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. Content can be userfied if someone wishes to merge it into something else, thus retaining the history. Drmies ( talk) 02:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Countries with close relations to the Nordic countries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:DEL6, it is an original synthesis. In addition it has an ill-defined subject "close relations" can mean a lot different things. Lappspira ( talk) 09:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete List criteria is ill defined. Subject fails WP:GNG and whole thing is WP:OR Jbh Talk 11:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- strong delete looks like someone's university assignment. Complete original research interpretation. LibStar ( talk) 15:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The subject is clearly defined. The text is not original research. Nor it is a "university assignment". The article was split from the article Nordic countries, because it is too large, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- there is no clear unambiguous definition of "close relations". LibStar ( talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) @
Staszek Lem: Are there any sources which draw the conclusions or make the assertions this article makes? It seems each of these is considered 'close' for different reasons. What makes these countries and there relationships with the Nordic countries a coherent group and what RS make that clear? How is this more that
List of countries which border the Nordic countries plus France? That is what I mean by
WP:OR.
What is the criteria used to define what 'close' is? Are there social, economic, political, historical, geographic factors which make something 'close'? Do all of these countries share a set of common criteria or are they 'close' for different reasons? If so what is the common criteria? Right now there is merely an assertion of 'closeness' without any clear definition of what that means. It is Europe, all of the countries have 'close' relations with each other and have done since there have been countries there. That is what I mean when I say the criteria for inclusion is ill-defined.
As to the split from Nordic countries I do not see any discussion about that on either talk page. Is there some discussion that can be linked to so we can understand the reasons behind the split? Jbh Talk 18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- re: "clear unambiguous definition" - for the purposes of wikipedia, if there are sources which say "country A has close relations with country B", it is a clear and unambiguous statement regardless what source had in mind. Staszek Lem ( talk)
- re "close for different reasons" - Irrelevant. re "coherent group" - irrelevant. It is not wikipedian's job to interpret sources. Whatever definition used by a source, the phrasing "close relations" clearly indicates an aspect which makes the discussion of country A relevant to Nordic countries. In real world many things are not as clear cut as in maths. (speaking of maths, there is the whole theory of fuzzy logic to address this). Nevertheless it is evident that one may want to distinguish countries like Estonia from countries like Zanzibar. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- re: "Europe, all of the countries have 'close' relations with each other" - No, not all. Anyway, an encyclopedic article deals not only with today, but with history. And some countries indeed had rather tight relations compared to others. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- re: "I do not see any discussion" - per WP:BOLD one does not need one. There were no objections either. Anyway, as you may have noticed, I posted a notice in that talk page. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- re: " How is this more that List of countries which border the Nordic countries plus France" - this is not a list article. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- You said the article was split from
Nordic countries 'because the content was too long' as a reason it should be kept so a link to a discussion would help - you appealed to prior consensus for inclusion and consensus to split the material off not BOLD. Two different things. The way you distinguish between Estonia and Zanzibar is by looking at a map. You are quite correct, we do not interpret sources which means we do not assume they mean the same thing when they use an ambiguous term like 'close' nor do we assume there is some reason these countries should be grouped together based on their relations with Nordic countries unless a RS does so. Anything else is SYNTH. Without some RS stating this grouping of countries is significant for their Nordic relations the entire topic is SYNTH and fails GNG.
Per the term 'close' every country in the Schengen Agreement, and/or the EU can be considered to have 'close' relations with one or more Nordic countries. What makes France different from Italy in this list? Having open borders, free trade and a common currency with one or more Nordic countries is 'close', why is having some Viking Settlers from 1100 years ago the distinguishing feature of 'closeness' that puts one country in the article and not the other??!!??
Per "not a list article". OK Countries which border the Nordic countries plus France - same question. Jbh Talk 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- You said the article was split from
Nordic countries 'because the content was too long' as a reason it should be kept so a link to a discussion would help - you appealed to prior consensus for inclusion and consensus to split the material off not BOLD. Two different things. The way you distinguish between Estonia and Zanzibar is by looking at a map. You are quite correct, we do not interpret sources which means we do not assume they mean the same thing when they use an ambiguous term like 'close' nor do we assume there is some reason these countries should be grouped together based on their relations with Nordic countries unless a RS does so. Anything else is SYNTH. Without some RS stating this grouping of countries is significant for their Nordic relations the entire topic is SYNTH and fails GNG.
Comment A: whatever the outcome of the fate of the article be, its content is clearly of encyclopedic value, and if the title decided to be improper for wikipedia, the article should be merged back and the fate of the content must be decided there. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as inherent WP:OR magnet. Encyclopedic content should be salvaged and moved/incorporated where appropriate.
Renata (
talk)
19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, I may agree with you. See my Comment A above. However in the case of salvaging, deletion is not an option, due to wikipedia copyright reasons. And you know how to battle OR, right? Since I don't think that the topic is of high controversy, it would be pretty easy to keep it well referenced and free of
WP:SYNTH.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you copy the article in your sandbox and work from there to incorporate salvaged content to relevant articles. As for me I'm busy creating content on other topics.
Lappspira (
talk)
20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, it seems you don't understand how wikipedia copyright works. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you copy the article in your sandbox and work from there to incorporate salvaged content to relevant articles. As for me I'm busy creating content on other topics.
Lappspira (
talk)
20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, I may agree with you. See my Comment A above. However in the case of salvaging, deletion is not an option, due to wikipedia copyright reasons. And you know how to battle OR, right? Since I don't think that the topic is of high controversy, it would be pretty easy to keep it well referenced and free of
WP:SYNTH.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Content can be userfied if someone wishes to merge it into something else, thus retaining the history. Drmies ( talk) 02:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Countries with close relations to the Nordic countries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:DEL6, it is an original synthesis. In addition it has an ill-defined subject "close relations" can mean a lot different things. Lappspira ( talk) 09:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete List criteria is ill defined. Subject fails WP:GNG and whole thing is WP:OR Jbh Talk 11:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- strong delete looks like someone's university assignment. Complete original research interpretation. LibStar ( talk) 15:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The subject is clearly defined. The text is not original research. Nor it is a "university assignment". The article was split from the article Nordic countries, because it is too large, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- there is no clear unambiguous definition of "close relations". LibStar ( talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) @
Staszek Lem: Are there any sources which draw the conclusions or make the assertions this article makes? It seems each of these is considered 'close' for different reasons. What makes these countries and there relationships with the Nordic countries a coherent group and what RS make that clear? How is this more that
List of countries which border the Nordic countries plus France? That is what I mean by
WP:OR.
What is the criteria used to define what 'close' is? Are there social, economic, political, historical, geographic factors which make something 'close'? Do all of these countries share a set of common criteria or are they 'close' for different reasons? If so what is the common criteria? Right now there is merely an assertion of 'closeness' without any clear definition of what that means. It is Europe, all of the countries have 'close' relations with each other and have done since there have been countries there. That is what I mean when I say the criteria for inclusion is ill-defined.
As to the split from Nordic countries I do not see any discussion about that on either talk page. Is there some discussion that can be linked to so we can understand the reasons behind the split? Jbh Talk 18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- re: "clear unambiguous definition" - for the purposes of wikipedia, if there are sources which say "country A has close relations with country B", it is a clear and unambiguous statement regardless what source had in mind. Staszek Lem ( talk)
- re "close for different reasons" - Irrelevant. re "coherent group" - irrelevant. It is not wikipedian's job to interpret sources. Whatever definition used by a source, the phrasing "close relations" clearly indicates an aspect which makes the discussion of country A relevant to Nordic countries. In real world many things are not as clear cut as in maths. (speaking of maths, there is the whole theory of fuzzy logic to address this). Nevertheless it is evident that one may want to distinguish countries like Estonia from countries like Zanzibar. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- re: "Europe, all of the countries have 'close' relations with each other" - No, not all. Anyway, an encyclopedic article deals not only with today, but with history. And some countries indeed had rather tight relations compared to others. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- re: "I do not see any discussion" - per WP:BOLD one does not need one. There were no objections either. Anyway, as you may have noticed, I posted a notice in that talk page. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- re: " How is this more that List of countries which border the Nordic countries plus France" - this is not a list article. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- You said the article was split from
Nordic countries 'because the content was too long' as a reason it should be kept so a link to a discussion would help - you appealed to prior consensus for inclusion and consensus to split the material off not BOLD. Two different things. The way you distinguish between Estonia and Zanzibar is by looking at a map. You are quite correct, we do not interpret sources which means we do not assume they mean the same thing when they use an ambiguous term like 'close' nor do we assume there is some reason these countries should be grouped together based on their relations with Nordic countries unless a RS does so. Anything else is SYNTH. Without some RS stating this grouping of countries is significant for their Nordic relations the entire topic is SYNTH and fails GNG.
Per the term 'close' every country in the Schengen Agreement, and/or the EU can be considered to have 'close' relations with one or more Nordic countries. What makes France different from Italy in this list? Having open borders, free trade and a common currency with one or more Nordic countries is 'close', why is having some Viking Settlers from 1100 years ago the distinguishing feature of 'closeness' that puts one country in the article and not the other??!!??
Per "not a list article". OK Countries which border the Nordic countries plus France - same question. Jbh Talk 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- You said the article was split from
Nordic countries 'because the content was too long' as a reason it should be kept so a link to a discussion would help - you appealed to prior consensus for inclusion and consensus to split the material off not BOLD. Two different things. The way you distinguish between Estonia and Zanzibar is by looking at a map. You are quite correct, we do not interpret sources which means we do not assume they mean the same thing when they use an ambiguous term like 'close' nor do we assume there is some reason these countries should be grouped together based on their relations with Nordic countries unless a RS does so. Anything else is SYNTH. Without some RS stating this grouping of countries is significant for their Nordic relations the entire topic is SYNTH and fails GNG.
Comment A: whatever the outcome of the fate of the article be, its content is clearly of encyclopedic value, and if the title decided to be improper for wikipedia, the article should be merged back and the fate of the content must be decided there. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as inherent WP:OR magnet. Encyclopedic content should be salvaged and moved/incorporated where appropriate.
Renata (
talk)
19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, I may agree with you. See my Comment A above. However in the case of salvaging, deletion is not an option, due to wikipedia copyright reasons. And you know how to battle OR, right? Since I don't think that the topic is of high controversy, it would be pretty easy to keep it well referenced and free of
WP:SYNTH.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you copy the article in your sandbox and work from there to incorporate salvaged content to relevant articles. As for me I'm busy creating content on other topics.
Lappspira (
talk)
20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, it seems you don't understand how wikipedia copyright works. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you copy the article in your sandbox and work from there to incorporate salvaged content to relevant articles. As for me I'm busy creating content on other topics.
Lappspira (
talk)
20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, I may agree with you. See my Comment A above. However in the case of salvaging, deletion is not an option, due to wikipedia copyright reasons. And you know how to battle OR, right? Since I don't think that the topic is of high controversy, it would be pretty easy to keep it well referenced and free of
WP:SYNTH.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.