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.
This topic certainly don't feel encyclopedic. This kind of list would never show up in any paper book about nations of the world or other factual work. An article about countries with ZERO borders would maybe-probably-not-but-maybe be of scholarly interest, but nothing would beat an article such as
List of countries by number of bordering countries - if anyone so desperately must know these things. This article is simply "hey look what I figured out" in my eyes and contains zero academic value. I say delete and then maybe create
this one as a replacement if anyone believe that it is wikirelevant.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
16:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Wow, this gets mentioned on the Wikipedia Facebook page as a fun article to check out (meaning that, you know, PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF WIKIPEDIA want to highlight as something noteworthy enough that they POSTED IT TO THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE), and almost IMMEDIATELY gets flagged for potential deletion. Typical freakin' Wikipedia for you. Keep and I'm so over this impulsive behavior from zealous editors.
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
How's it going, Jimmy Wales??? I'd assume from that cocky, self-congratulating tone that could only be you, since you appear to speak so definitively about what Wikipedia can and cannot do!
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
19:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for adding so much to the conversation! The implication by not saying anything except "delete" and calling me out for disobeying one of your bureaucratic rules is that you're literally saying "delete" out of spite! That's fun!
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
03:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Response Please! Just because the admin of the facebook page (which might be anyone for all we know, a shoddy intern at wikimedia communications) likes this article, that doesn't mean it is good. This only means that someone thought "hey, look at this crazy piece of facts I found on wikipedia LOLZ". Just because facebook brought it to my attention don't make my arguments less valid. Everyone calm down and start discussing facts please!! I rest my case: delete.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
11:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You seem to projecting a LOT ("a shoddy intern at wikimedia communications... thought "hey, look at this crazy piece of facts I found on wikipedia LOLZ") based on very little evidence. To me, that runs completely contrary to the ideals of Wikipedia. People should be held accountable for their biases. No listing off inane bureaucratic rules excuses that.
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm just saying it COULD be so, you don't either have any evidence for your assumption that "WP Facebook page is run by deadly serious people who only share the very best pages". Speaking of which, you have not either come with any evidence for your "keep" other than name-calling and pointing out to other editors that their arguments are invalid because you dislike them. So let's both stop this nonsense and do this like adults: Fireflyfanboy, do you have any factual and objective arguments that the article is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? And can you understand why I think that it is not?
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
15:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm an inclusionist, pure and simple. The article is here, it's accurate, it doesn't do anything wrong (except any arbitrary broken rule you want to throw at it, which makes the case for improvement more than deletion). Let's talk about improving, or even modifying, rather than deleting outright. This should have been a topic for the talk page. But discussions like these, where we are talking about deleting a innocuous article, is a big reason why some people hate this website and the associated bureaucracy. Moreover, while you are so quick to dismiss the Facebook post "oh, it was on Facebook, but it's probably an intern that posted it so let's delete this puppy," to me, you can construe it any way you want, but basically, SOMEONE at the higher ups believes this article is worthy enough of recognition. You can try to project whatever you want or dismiss it all you want, but them's the facts. That, to me, tells me that deletion is foolhardy at best and obstructionist at worst.
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
First of all, PLEASE stop bringing up Facebook. How is the method through which I found this article relevant? Does that gives it some kind of immunity, and me some kind of evil-label? Second of all,
"doesn't do anything wrong" is a completely substance-less argument. The reason that I nominated deletion was that I think it is an arbitrary list with
very limited academic use. Consider
WP:NOTCATALOG which mentions "Simple listings", and
WP:INDISCRIMINATE aka
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK which deals with "unexplained statistics". This article, and especially its stated purpose, feels like an output from
WolframAlpha and not something you would find listed in - for instance - the appendix of a paper encyclopedia of geography. I agree with your point about improving however; I believe we should change the article and recreate it titled
List of countries by number of bordering countries. If this gets deleted, I will personally write that article.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying anything more. You are the equivalent of a political radical: nit-picking, obsessive and spouting out BS justification through BS rules and regulations you've memorized. You think all this time you've spent memorizing various talking and policy points makes you better than me, just like every other editor like you that I've encountered. But honestly, I think people like you are the reason why Wikipedia can be such a pain in the ass, and also the reason more people don't edit for this website. And if this article is deleted, it serves as nothing more than a testament to all of that.
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
22:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Okay, right now you are doing nothing but namecalling. And why are you talking as if remembering policies and guidelines are a bad thing? I consider this conversation over,
Fireflyfanboy, and I won't reply to your comments anymore. If you want to keep shouting insults at me, please do it on
my own talk page. Let this page be for people actually discussing deletion.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
23:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and expand to include descriptions of the kinds of single-border relationship involved. There are generally three possibilities. The first is a split island like Haiti/Dominican Republic or Ireland/United Kingdom; the second is the peninsular relationship, where the first country borders the second and is otherwise surrounded by sea, while the second borders other countries, like Portugal/Spain, Denmark/Germany, and Canada/United States; the third is the circumstance where the first country is a small country that is landlocked and completely surrounded by the second, larger country, such as The Vatican/Italy and Lesotho/South Africa. This should all be explained and the type of relationship should be identified for each country listed.
bd2412T01:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, i was surprised that an article thats been around since 2004 remains unreferenced (actually im not that surprised, this is wikipedia after all
), although this looks likely to be kept through consensus, i have some comments/questions that i hope will be answered by the keepers, this appears to be a case of
original research as there are no references cited, just wondering why none of the keepers above have referred to any books/articles about this subject? the lead states "with only land borders being counted.", why? whats wrong with counting sea/water boundaries?, none of the "keepers" above have stated that this article meets
WP:NLIST nor
WP:GNG or have backed their "keep" with references, at the moment it looks like a case of
WP:ILIKEIT. (i admit this is quite
interesting, oops another
argument not to use.:))
Coolabahapple (
talk)
07:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, it could be argued that this sort of information is what wikipedia
as a gazetteer should contain...but im also concerned about the arbitrary nature of the inclusion criteria ie. why not two or three or four boundaries?
Coolabahapple (
talk)
07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Response: Yes, maybe there is some academic interest in this article. However, as people have already stated, the list feels very arbitrary in its inclusion criterion and leaves one wondering "tsk, okaaay?" like one don't understand why this is an important step towards all-encompassing knowledge for humanity. So I say delete and create
this instead.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Dammit, there already was one?? Well, as every search clearly states, consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered, I guess I'm guilty as charged. Back on topic however, I now suggest delete and merge to
here for the article in question.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Summary Thanks to
User:Coffee for relisting. I really wasted some bandwidth here by going in a insult war with someone else, and then trying to create
an article that
already exists. So let's sum up my opinions so far: I think this list is too arbitrary, it makes one wonder if we are going to write separate articles listing "countries with X borders. And, since we already have an article called
List of countries and territories by land borders, this one feels redundant. Policies applicable include
WP:NOTCATALOG, which mentions "simple listings", and
WP:INDISCRIMINATE aka
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, which deals with "unexplained statistics". As of yet, I can't see any editors coming here to refute these two points, and thus no consensus have been formed. So my case is still either delete or merge into
here and turn into redirect
here.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
09:25, 19 December 2017 (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.
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.
This topic certainly don't feel encyclopedic. This kind of list would never show up in any paper book about nations of the world or other factual work. An article about countries with ZERO borders would maybe-probably-not-but-maybe be of scholarly interest, but nothing would beat an article such as
List of countries by number of bordering countries - if anyone so desperately must know these things. This article is simply "hey look what I figured out" in my eyes and contains zero academic value. I say delete and then maybe create
this one as a replacement if anyone believe that it is wikirelevant.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
16:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Wow, this gets mentioned on the Wikipedia Facebook page as a fun article to check out (meaning that, you know, PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF WIKIPEDIA want to highlight as something noteworthy enough that they POSTED IT TO THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE), and almost IMMEDIATELY gets flagged for potential deletion. Typical freakin' Wikipedia for you. Keep and I'm so over this impulsive behavior from zealous editors.
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
How's it going, Jimmy Wales??? I'd assume from that cocky, self-congratulating tone that could only be you, since you appear to speak so definitively about what Wikipedia can and cannot do!
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
19:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for adding so much to the conversation! The implication by not saying anything except "delete" and calling me out for disobeying one of your bureaucratic rules is that you're literally saying "delete" out of spite! That's fun!
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
03:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Response Please! Just because the admin of the facebook page (which might be anyone for all we know, a shoddy intern at wikimedia communications) likes this article, that doesn't mean it is good. This only means that someone thought "hey, look at this crazy piece of facts I found on wikipedia LOLZ". Just because facebook brought it to my attention don't make my arguments less valid. Everyone calm down and start discussing facts please!! I rest my case: delete.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
11:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You seem to projecting a LOT ("a shoddy intern at wikimedia communications... thought "hey, look at this crazy piece of facts I found on wikipedia LOLZ") based on very little evidence. To me, that runs completely contrary to the ideals of Wikipedia. People should be held accountable for their biases. No listing off inane bureaucratic rules excuses that.
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm just saying it COULD be so, you don't either have any evidence for your assumption that "WP Facebook page is run by deadly serious people who only share the very best pages". Speaking of which, you have not either come with any evidence for your "keep" other than name-calling and pointing out to other editors that their arguments are invalid because you dislike them. So let's both stop this nonsense and do this like adults: Fireflyfanboy, do you have any factual and objective arguments that the article is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? And can you understand why I think that it is not?
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
15:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm an inclusionist, pure and simple. The article is here, it's accurate, it doesn't do anything wrong (except any arbitrary broken rule you want to throw at it, which makes the case for improvement more than deletion). Let's talk about improving, or even modifying, rather than deleting outright. This should have been a topic for the talk page. But discussions like these, where we are talking about deleting a innocuous article, is a big reason why some people hate this website and the associated bureaucracy. Moreover, while you are so quick to dismiss the Facebook post "oh, it was on Facebook, but it's probably an intern that posted it so let's delete this puppy," to me, you can construe it any way you want, but basically, SOMEONE at the higher ups believes this article is worthy enough of recognition. You can try to project whatever you want or dismiss it all you want, but them's the facts. That, to me, tells me that deletion is foolhardy at best and obstructionist at worst.
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
First of all, PLEASE stop bringing up Facebook. How is the method through which I found this article relevant? Does that gives it some kind of immunity, and me some kind of evil-label? Second of all,
"doesn't do anything wrong" is a completely substance-less argument. The reason that I nominated deletion was that I think it is an arbitrary list with
very limited academic use. Consider
WP:NOTCATALOG which mentions "Simple listings", and
WP:INDISCRIMINATE aka
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK which deals with "unexplained statistics". This article, and especially its stated purpose, feels like an output from
WolframAlpha and not something you would find listed in - for instance - the appendix of a paper encyclopedia of geography. I agree with your point about improving however; I believe we should change the article and recreate it titled
List of countries by number of bordering countries. If this gets deleted, I will personally write that article.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying anything more. You are the equivalent of a political radical: nit-picking, obsessive and spouting out BS justification through BS rules and regulations you've memorized. You think all this time you've spent memorizing various talking and policy points makes you better than me, just like every other editor like you that I've encountered. But honestly, I think people like you are the reason why Wikipedia can be such a pain in the ass, and also the reason more people don't edit for this website. And if this article is deleted, it serves as nothing more than a testament to all of that.
Fireflyfanboy (
talk)
22:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Okay, right now you are doing nothing but namecalling. And why are you talking as if remembering policies and guidelines are a bad thing? I consider this conversation over,
Fireflyfanboy, and I won't reply to your comments anymore. If you want to keep shouting insults at me, please do it on
my own talk page. Let this page be for people actually discussing deletion.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
23:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and expand to include descriptions of the kinds of single-border relationship involved. There are generally three possibilities. The first is a split island like Haiti/Dominican Republic or Ireland/United Kingdom; the second is the peninsular relationship, where the first country borders the second and is otherwise surrounded by sea, while the second borders other countries, like Portugal/Spain, Denmark/Germany, and Canada/United States; the third is the circumstance where the first country is a small country that is landlocked and completely surrounded by the second, larger country, such as The Vatican/Italy and Lesotho/South Africa. This should all be explained and the type of relationship should be identified for each country listed.
bd2412T01:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, i was surprised that an article thats been around since 2004 remains unreferenced (actually im not that surprised, this is wikipedia after all
), although this looks likely to be kept through consensus, i have some comments/questions that i hope will be answered by the keepers, this appears to be a case of
original research as there are no references cited, just wondering why none of the keepers above have referred to any books/articles about this subject? the lead states "with only land borders being counted.", why? whats wrong with counting sea/water boundaries?, none of the "keepers" above have stated that this article meets
WP:NLIST nor
WP:GNG or have backed their "keep" with references, at the moment it looks like a case of
WP:ILIKEIT. (i admit this is quite
interesting, oops another
argument not to use.:))
Coolabahapple (
talk)
07:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, it could be argued that this sort of information is what wikipedia
as a gazetteer should contain...but im also concerned about the arbitrary nature of the inclusion criteria ie. why not two or three or four boundaries?
Coolabahapple (
talk)
07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Response: Yes, maybe there is some academic interest in this article. However, as people have already stated, the list feels very arbitrary in its inclusion criterion and leaves one wondering "tsk, okaaay?" like one don't understand why this is an important step towards all-encompassing knowledge for humanity. So I say delete and create
this instead.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Dammit, there already was one?? Well, as every search clearly states, consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered, I guess I'm guilty as charged. Back on topic however, I now suggest delete and merge to
here for the article in question.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Summary Thanks to
User:Coffee for relisting. I really wasted some bandwidth here by going in a insult war with someone else, and then trying to create
an article that
already exists. So let's sum up my opinions so far: I think this list is too arbitrary, it makes one wonder if we are going to write separate articles listing "countries with X borders. And, since we already have an article called
List of countries and territories by land borders, this one feels redundant. Policies applicable include
WP:NOTCATALOG, which mentions "simple listings", and
WP:INDISCRIMINATE aka
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, which deals with "unexplained statistics". As of yet, I can't see any editors coming here to refute these two points, and thus no consensus have been formed. So my case is still either delete or merge into
here and turn into redirect
here.
Thankful for
cooperation,
thankful for
Wikipedia, Gaioa (
click to talk)
09:25, 19 December 2017 (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.