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. I am closing this particular discussion as no consensus; however, it seems that the community discussion is starting to ask bigger picture questions about this particular list series in general. That particular discussion may fall more in the realm of
WP:RFC. Because of this, I will initiate an RFC on
Talk:List of sovereign states on the topic. bibliomaniac1501:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is an unnecessary
content fork from
List of sovereign states. That previous long-standing article contains the current list of states, and not all sovereign states in history, so it is the list for now which happens to be the 2020s. Therefore this newer article's claim of being more specific is nonsensical. The page creator's research efforts could be used to improve the original article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)22:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Also, if that is even a problem worth considering, a much better solution would be to re-title the main
List of sovereign states article to include something like "current". There is no convincing reason for two list articles to feature the exact same list. The point of the decade-by-decade articles can be to illustrate old sovereign states that no longer exist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)23:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm not convinced that this series of articles is particularly well-read. For example, for the last two and a half years until a few minutes ago,
List of sovereign states in the 1940s has claimed that the
United States was a member of the
League of Nations until 1945. The same article says that the 1940s list includes "one state which was initially unrecognized but then gained full recognition later in the decade" but gives no indication of which country that is. --
Metropolitan90(talk)01:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect I have worked a bit on the previous lists: there used to be individual articles for every year instead of decade, so that's really some duplication and opportunity for unread errors per Metropolitan90! At this point the 2020s list serves zero purpose whatsoever, but may do so once there is a change from the main current list (which should also keep the current name for conciseness).
Reywas92Talk01:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. The whole conception of this article and all the other articles for decades before this are completely terrible. But I can't support a keep nor a delete. I believe a better way to document this content is in timelines. It can be in one article, or multiple articles, but definitely the way it is now needs to change.
Ajf773 (
talk)
08:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Refactor per Ajf773; failing that merge into current list until a there is a change (in countries, not our practices). I agree with Ajf773 that the current way of doing things is inefficient. Perhaps different "eras" may be used (such as the interwar period), but that itself poses problems in original research. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs)
02:23, 12 April 2020 (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.
The result was no consensus. I am closing this particular discussion as no consensus; however, it seems that the community discussion is starting to ask bigger picture questions about this particular list series in general. That particular discussion may fall more in the realm of
WP:RFC. Because of this, I will initiate an RFC on
Talk:List of sovereign states on the topic. bibliomaniac1501:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is an unnecessary
content fork from
List of sovereign states. That previous long-standing article contains the current list of states, and not all sovereign states in history, so it is the list for now which happens to be the 2020s. Therefore this newer article's claim of being more specific is nonsensical. The page creator's research efforts could be used to improve the original article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)22:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Also, if that is even a problem worth considering, a much better solution would be to re-title the main
List of sovereign states article to include something like "current". There is no convincing reason for two list articles to feature the exact same list. The point of the decade-by-decade articles can be to illustrate old sovereign states that no longer exist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)23:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm not convinced that this series of articles is particularly well-read. For example, for the last two and a half years until a few minutes ago,
List of sovereign states in the 1940s has claimed that the
United States was a member of the
League of Nations until 1945. The same article says that the 1940s list includes "one state which was initially unrecognized but then gained full recognition later in the decade" but gives no indication of which country that is. --
Metropolitan90(talk)01:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect I have worked a bit on the previous lists: there used to be individual articles for every year instead of decade, so that's really some duplication and opportunity for unread errors per Metropolitan90! At this point the 2020s list serves zero purpose whatsoever, but may do so once there is a change from the main current list (which should also keep the current name for conciseness).
Reywas92Talk01:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. The whole conception of this article and all the other articles for decades before this are completely terrible. But I can't support a keep nor a delete. I believe a better way to document this content is in timelines. It can be in one article, or multiple articles, but definitely the way it is now needs to change.
Ajf773 (
talk)
08:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Refactor per Ajf773; failing that merge into current list until a there is a change (in countries, not our practices). I agree with Ajf773 that the current way of doing things is inefficient. Perhaps different "eras" may be used (such as the interwar period), but that itself poses problems in original research. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs)
02:23, 12 April 2020 (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.