- 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 was a lack of policy-related argument going on in this AFD discussion, except for accusations of OR and SYNTH which weren't backed up with examples or diffs of where these bad practices occurred. And I estimate ~180 edits have been made to this article since this AFD was opened way back on Oct. 18th, so the article has been actively improved. This discussion has been relisted 3 times and we are now in December so I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus. Problems that are seen as still remaining can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
State collapse
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- State collapse ( | 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)
This is a personal essay written primarily by one editor ( User:Crawiki). "State collapse" is a vague general term that this article has turned into an umbrella term for concepts like failed states, coups and revolutions (if there's any content worth keeping from this article, it can be merged with any of those articles). The article does cite a lot of things but these citations are WP:SYNTHESIS, as the citations are not about "state collapse" – they are just cobbled together to imply something that the sources do not say. Thenightaway ( talk) 17:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- In August Thenightaway proposed merging State collapse with Failed state. This received zero support. I explained, step by step, why it was a bad idea. The proposal to delete contains exactly the same vague, unsupported opinions.
- This is a personal essay. No evidence is provided in support of this sweeping allegation. A personal essay implies that it is shot through with my own opinions. Where in the article does this occur?
- ...written primarily by one editor. The article was written in 2017 in detailed collaboration with Rwood128 and Nihil novi and amended by numerous other editors since.
- "State collapse" is a vague general term Not so. the term 'state collapse' is precisely defined in the lead to the article. There are numerous scholarly articles on the internet where the phrase 'state collapse' occurs in the heading.
- ...that this article has turned into an umbrella term. So, what? 'Power' is an umbrella term for electricity, gas, wind, wave etc. There is nothing wrong per se with umbrella terms.
- if there's any content worth keeping from this article, it can be merged with failed states, coups and revolutions. That would be a Category mistake because you would be attempting to blend a flow concept with a stock concept, see Stock and flow article. Flow is a process, stock is an end-product. To give an explanatory example, income such as a pay packet is a flow; wealth, such as a gold bar, is a stock. State collapse is a negative form of FLOW - (there is decreasing governance) whereas a failed state is a situation where the STOCK of governance has dwindled to zero - a situation of 'every man for himself' where central organisation of law, defence etc is absent. You would not attempt to merge an article on 'rivers' with one on 'sea'.
- The article does cite a lot of things but these citations are WP:SYNTHESIS. No evidence is offered in support of this allegation. As I pointed out previously, synth is not presumed. The onus is on Thenightaway to point out where synth occurs.
- the citations are not about "state collapse" – they are just cobbled together to imply something that the sources do not say. This observation is unsupported by any evidence. Please specify where and how the 'cobbling and implying' occurs? Crawiki ( talk) 09:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- The article defines state collapse as "the complete failure of a mode of government within a sovereign state", which is not a precise definition and is not sourced to anything. A merger proposal ended with "no consensus" because it had no participation from anyone aside from you. But that's fine – this is more appropriate as an AfD case than a merger case.
Thenightaway (
talk)
10:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- *Keep. The definition has now been sourced. Re more appropriate as an AfD case, I am not convinced that is so. People do not normally deploy plan B ahead of plan A. Read
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially on
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid. Comments made thus far by
User:The nightaway are almost entirely contradiction rather than refutation.
- The definition that you added is indistinguishable from Failed state and the absence of State capacity. Thenightaway ( talk) 17:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- A good point. Important to emphasise that state collapse is a process, whereas failed state is 9sometimes) an end-product. Definition amended to reflect this. Crawiki ( talk) 18:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- *Keep. The definition has now been sourced. Re more appropriate as an AfD case, I am not convinced that is so. People do not normally deploy plan B ahead of plan A. Read
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially on
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid. Comments made thus far by
User:The nightaway are almost entirely contradiction rather than refutation.
- The article defines state collapse as "the complete failure of a mode of government within a sovereign state", which is not a precise definition and is not sourced to anything. A merger proposal ended with "no consensus" because it had no participation from anyone aside from you. But that's fine – this is more appropriate as an AfD case than a merger case.
Thenightaway (
talk)
10:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a significantly more general subject than failed state, and there is a lot of literature about it including books (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], and so on and so on). Hence, this is valid page. Yes, perhaps it could be improved. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Three of those four sources appear linked to the work of one person, 'Alexandros Yannis'. One is Yannis's PhD thesis and two are pieces from a special issue organized by Yannis in a low-tier journal. The 4th source is a low-tier academic press book. Do these sources actually define state collapse in a way that distinguishes it from the numerous interchangeable terms? I looked at the introduction to the special issue and the term is defined in a very hazy way. Is there anything to indicate that this is more than a vague general term that some people have happened to use? Thenightaway ( talk) 01:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- The search through Scholar [5] and books reveals lots of other sources apparently on this subject, I just randomly picked a few. Not being an expert, I can't say if this is stable scientific terminology rather than just an expression. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is a important article on an important concept. I would support a merge at best... Mr vili ( talk) 04:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Currently is cobbled together, with a lot of synthesis, into a loosely organized personal essay. Sourcing is largely awful - country-specific news clippings that never use the term/phrase or discuss it in detail. To the extent this is a unified concept in international relations or political science theory, (1) this article is a clear
WP:TNT case and (2) can be covered with in other articles.
Neutrality
talk
16:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please take the time to read my foregoing comments. To repeat; synth cannot be presumed. If you wish to allege SYNTH, you have to specify where and how it occurs. Similarly, 'personal essay'; where have I inserted my own opinions? Be specific. 'Can be covered with in other articles'? Please specify which you have in mind?? I have explained several times, (1), here, (2) in the recent merge discussion, and (3) on the talk page, why it is not suitable for merging
- [reply] Crawiki ( talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Very few (almost none) of the sources cited actually discuss state collapse as a concept. Cobbling together random news stories that say “X government might collapse” or “Y has collapsed” is not good sourcing for an article on “state collapse.” Some never use the phrase at all… The article just assembles loosely collected historical anecdotes, rather than relying on academic journal articles, university press-published books, etc., on the concept. To the extent this is an actual concept, it could be covered in articles on
state capacity,
fragile state,
failed state, and many others.
Neutrality
talk
18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Very little (almost nothing) of what you say is actually true. 'almost none discuss state collapse as a concept' is false. None of the news stories are 'random' or 'cobbled together'. 'not good sourcing' and 'loosely collected anecdotes' is just mudslinging. State collapse is a process, analogous to a car tumbling down a cliff and falling apart. It differs therefore from failed state (analogous to a wrecked car), from state capacity (analogous to manufacturer's stats, horsepower, top speed etc) and from coup (analogous to car theft or hijack). I say again, read my previous comments, you obviously have not done so.
Crawiki (
talk)
19:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
-
Do you understand your article is actually
WP:OR (therefore subject to
WP:TNT), specifically
WP:SYNTH (combining multiple sources to make a conclusion that isn't in reliable sources)?
Wikipedia is not for original research and
you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with
reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here.
110.136.129.154 (
talk)
03:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, you read the comment at the top of this discussion, and took it as gospel. But let's stick to the facts, shall we? First of all, it is NOT 'my article', never has been, and never will be. It is merely an article to which I made a major contribution. Nobody 'owns' Wikipedia articles, see
WP:OWN. Second, if you want to allege OR and SYNTH, you should provide evidence. Third, 'you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here' is a violation of
WP:PA. Good day to you.
Crawiki (
talk)
04:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly I agree with you. I forgot that nobody own Wikipedia pages and my accusations are actually baseless (alleging without evidence). 110.136.129.154 ( talk) 05:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, you read the comment at the top of this discussion, and took it as gospel. But let's stick to the facts, shall we? First of all, it is NOT 'my article', never has been, and never will be. It is merely an article to which I made a major contribution. Nobody 'owns' Wikipedia articles, see
WP:OWN. Second, if you want to allege OR and SYNTH, you should provide evidence. Third, 'you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here' is a violation of
WP:PA. Good day to you.
Crawiki (
talk)
04:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
-
Do you understand your article is actually
WP:OR (therefore subject to
WP:TNT), specifically
WP:SYNTH (combining multiple sources to make a conclusion that isn't in reliable sources)?
Wikipedia is not for original research and
you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with
reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here.
110.136.129.154 (
talk)
03:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Very little (almost nothing) of what you say is actually true. 'almost none discuss state collapse as a concept' is false. None of the news stories are 'random' or 'cobbled together'. 'not good sourcing' and 'loosely collected anecdotes' is just mudslinging. State collapse is a process, analogous to a car tumbling down a cliff and falling apart. It differs therefore from failed state (analogous to a wrecked car), from state capacity (analogous to manufacturer's stats, horsepower, top speed etc) and from coup (analogous to car theft or hijack). I say again, read my previous comments, you obviously have not done so.
Crawiki (
talk)
19:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Very few (almost none) of the sources cited actually discuss state collapse as a concept. Cobbling together random news stories that say “X government might collapse” or “Y has collapsed” is not good sourcing for an article on “state collapse.” Some never use the phrase at all… The article just assembles loosely collected historical anecdotes, rather than relying on academic journal articles, university press-published books, etc., on the concept. To the extent this is an actual concept, it could be covered in articles on
state capacity,
fragile state,
failed state, and many others.
Neutrality
talk
18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as synthesis.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
23:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, as said numerous times above, SYNTH is not presumed. You need to provide evidence that the article says, or implies that A is true, B is true, therefore C is also true. If you can do that, I'll be more than happy to make changes. Otherwise your comment is merely WP: I just don't like it Crawiki ( talk) 10:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I need to find time to review this further, but GScholar does show the term is widely used, the article appears to be referenced, and I am not convinced this is the same topic as failed state (it's related but state collapse is a process, failed state is the outcome, and only one of several for state collapse). I will try to read Talk:Failed_state#Merger_proposal too, but for now I think this doesn't need WP:TNT. Do ping me if you want to tell me I missed some obvious problem. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think this needs TNT. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as it is fixable. I started fixing the first few paragraphs. With nearly 100 editors editing over 10 years, with uneven access to sources, it is understandable how it got to this point. It just needs a thorough check against all the sources from beginning to end, and everything unsourced or which fails verification should be removed. It also needed to be clearer that a lot of the concepts discussed are contested and that there isn't necessarily a single "correct" interpretation in many cases. Anyway I've at least started the process. Cielquiparle ( talk) 10:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning keep, primarily on the strength of the willingness of editors to bring this up to encyclopedic standards. The subject is notable, and can be improved. BD2412 T 01:31, 26 November 2022 (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 no consensus. There was a lack of policy-related argument going on in this AFD discussion, except for accusations of OR and SYNTH which weren't backed up with examples or diffs of where these bad practices occurred. And I estimate ~180 edits have been made to this article since this AFD was opened way back on Oct. 18th, so the article has been actively improved. This discussion has been relisted 3 times and we are now in December so I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus. Problems that are seen as still remaining can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
State collapse
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- State collapse ( | 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)
This is a personal essay written primarily by one editor ( User:Crawiki). "State collapse" is a vague general term that this article has turned into an umbrella term for concepts like failed states, coups and revolutions (if there's any content worth keeping from this article, it can be merged with any of those articles). The article does cite a lot of things but these citations are WP:SYNTHESIS, as the citations are not about "state collapse" – they are just cobbled together to imply something that the sources do not say. Thenightaway ( talk) 17:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- In August Thenightaway proposed merging State collapse with Failed state. This received zero support. I explained, step by step, why it was a bad idea. The proposal to delete contains exactly the same vague, unsupported opinions.
- This is a personal essay. No evidence is provided in support of this sweeping allegation. A personal essay implies that it is shot through with my own opinions. Where in the article does this occur?
- ...written primarily by one editor. The article was written in 2017 in detailed collaboration with Rwood128 and Nihil novi and amended by numerous other editors since.
- "State collapse" is a vague general term Not so. the term 'state collapse' is precisely defined in the lead to the article. There are numerous scholarly articles on the internet where the phrase 'state collapse' occurs in the heading.
- ...that this article has turned into an umbrella term. So, what? 'Power' is an umbrella term for electricity, gas, wind, wave etc. There is nothing wrong per se with umbrella terms.
- if there's any content worth keeping from this article, it can be merged with failed states, coups and revolutions. That would be a Category mistake because you would be attempting to blend a flow concept with a stock concept, see Stock and flow article. Flow is a process, stock is an end-product. To give an explanatory example, income such as a pay packet is a flow; wealth, such as a gold bar, is a stock. State collapse is a negative form of FLOW - (there is decreasing governance) whereas a failed state is a situation where the STOCK of governance has dwindled to zero - a situation of 'every man for himself' where central organisation of law, defence etc is absent. You would not attempt to merge an article on 'rivers' with one on 'sea'.
- The article does cite a lot of things but these citations are WP:SYNTHESIS. No evidence is offered in support of this allegation. As I pointed out previously, synth is not presumed. The onus is on Thenightaway to point out where synth occurs.
- the citations are not about "state collapse" – they are just cobbled together to imply something that the sources do not say. This observation is unsupported by any evidence. Please specify where and how the 'cobbling and implying' occurs? Crawiki ( talk) 09:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- The article defines state collapse as "the complete failure of a mode of government within a sovereign state", which is not a precise definition and is not sourced to anything. A merger proposal ended with "no consensus" because it had no participation from anyone aside from you. But that's fine – this is more appropriate as an AfD case than a merger case.
Thenightaway (
talk)
10:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- *Keep. The definition has now been sourced. Re more appropriate as an AfD case, I am not convinced that is so. People do not normally deploy plan B ahead of plan A. Read
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially on
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid. Comments made thus far by
User:The nightaway are almost entirely contradiction rather than refutation.
- The definition that you added is indistinguishable from Failed state and the absence of State capacity. Thenightaway ( talk) 17:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- A good point. Important to emphasise that state collapse is a process, whereas failed state is 9sometimes) an end-product. Definition amended to reflect this. Crawiki ( talk) 18:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- *Keep. The definition has now been sourced. Re more appropriate as an AfD case, I am not convinced that is so. People do not normally deploy plan B ahead of plan A. Read
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially on
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid. Comments made thus far by
User:The nightaway are almost entirely contradiction rather than refutation.
- The article defines state collapse as "the complete failure of a mode of government within a sovereign state", which is not a precise definition and is not sourced to anything. A merger proposal ended with "no consensus" because it had no participation from anyone aside from you. But that's fine – this is more appropriate as an AfD case than a merger case.
Thenightaway (
talk)
10:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a significantly more general subject than failed state, and there is a lot of literature about it including books (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], and so on and so on). Hence, this is valid page. Yes, perhaps it could be improved. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Three of those four sources appear linked to the work of one person, 'Alexandros Yannis'. One is Yannis's PhD thesis and two are pieces from a special issue organized by Yannis in a low-tier journal. The 4th source is a low-tier academic press book. Do these sources actually define state collapse in a way that distinguishes it from the numerous interchangeable terms? I looked at the introduction to the special issue and the term is defined in a very hazy way. Is there anything to indicate that this is more than a vague general term that some people have happened to use? Thenightaway ( talk) 01:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- The search through Scholar [5] and books reveals lots of other sources apparently on this subject, I just randomly picked a few. Not being an expert, I can't say if this is stable scientific terminology rather than just an expression. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is a important article on an important concept. I would support a merge at best... Mr vili ( talk) 04:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Currently is cobbled together, with a lot of synthesis, into a loosely organized personal essay. Sourcing is largely awful - country-specific news clippings that never use the term/phrase or discuss it in detail. To the extent this is a unified concept in international relations or political science theory, (1) this article is a clear
WP:TNT case and (2) can be covered with in other articles.
Neutrality
talk
16:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please take the time to read my foregoing comments. To repeat; synth cannot be presumed. If you wish to allege SYNTH, you have to specify where and how it occurs. Similarly, 'personal essay'; where have I inserted my own opinions? Be specific. 'Can be covered with in other articles'? Please specify which you have in mind?? I have explained several times, (1), here, (2) in the recent merge discussion, and (3) on the talk page, why it is not suitable for merging
- [reply] Crawiki ( talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Very few (almost none) of the sources cited actually discuss state collapse as a concept. Cobbling together random news stories that say “X government might collapse” or “Y has collapsed” is not good sourcing for an article on “state collapse.” Some never use the phrase at all… The article just assembles loosely collected historical anecdotes, rather than relying on academic journal articles, university press-published books, etc., on the concept. To the extent this is an actual concept, it could be covered in articles on
state capacity,
fragile state,
failed state, and many others.
Neutrality
talk
18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Very little (almost nothing) of what you say is actually true. 'almost none discuss state collapse as a concept' is false. None of the news stories are 'random' or 'cobbled together'. 'not good sourcing' and 'loosely collected anecdotes' is just mudslinging. State collapse is a process, analogous to a car tumbling down a cliff and falling apart. It differs therefore from failed state (analogous to a wrecked car), from state capacity (analogous to manufacturer's stats, horsepower, top speed etc) and from coup (analogous to car theft or hijack). I say again, read my previous comments, you obviously have not done so.
Crawiki (
talk)
19:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
-
Do you understand your article is actually
WP:OR (therefore subject to
WP:TNT), specifically
WP:SYNTH (combining multiple sources to make a conclusion that isn't in reliable sources)?
Wikipedia is not for original research and
you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with
reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here.
110.136.129.154 (
talk)
03:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, you read the comment at the top of this discussion, and took it as gospel. But let's stick to the facts, shall we? First of all, it is NOT 'my article', never has been, and never will be. It is merely an article to which I made a major contribution. Nobody 'owns' Wikipedia articles, see
WP:OWN. Second, if you want to allege OR and SYNTH, you should provide evidence. Third, 'you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here' is a violation of
WP:PA. Good day to you.
Crawiki (
talk)
04:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly I agree with you. I forgot that nobody own Wikipedia pages and my accusations are actually baseless (alleging without evidence). 110.136.129.154 ( talk) 05:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, you read the comment at the top of this discussion, and took it as gospel. But let's stick to the facts, shall we? First of all, it is NOT 'my article', never has been, and never will be. It is merely an article to which I made a major contribution. Nobody 'owns' Wikipedia articles, see
WP:OWN. Second, if you want to allege OR and SYNTH, you should provide evidence. Third, 'you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here' is a violation of
WP:PA. Good day to you.
Crawiki (
talk)
04:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
-
Do you understand your article is actually
WP:OR (therefore subject to
WP:TNT), specifically
WP:SYNTH (combining multiple sources to make a conclusion that isn't in reliable sources)?
Wikipedia is not for original research and
you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with
reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here.
110.136.129.154 (
talk)
03:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Very little (almost nothing) of what you say is actually true. 'almost none discuss state collapse as a concept' is false. None of the news stories are 'random' or 'cobbled together'. 'not good sourcing' and 'loosely collected anecdotes' is just mudslinging. State collapse is a process, analogous to a car tumbling down a cliff and falling apart. It differs therefore from failed state (analogous to a wrecked car), from state capacity (analogous to manufacturer's stats, horsepower, top speed etc) and from coup (analogous to car theft or hijack). I say again, read my previous comments, you obviously have not done so.
Crawiki (
talk)
19:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Very few (almost none) of the sources cited actually discuss state collapse as a concept. Cobbling together random news stories that say “X government might collapse” or “Y has collapsed” is not good sourcing for an article on “state collapse.” Some never use the phrase at all… The article just assembles loosely collected historical anecdotes, rather than relying on academic journal articles, university press-published books, etc., on the concept. To the extent this is an actual concept, it could be covered in articles on
state capacity,
fragile state,
failed state, and many others.
Neutrality
talk
18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as synthesis.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
23:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, as said numerous times above, SYNTH is not presumed. You need to provide evidence that the article says, or implies that A is true, B is true, therefore C is also true. If you can do that, I'll be more than happy to make changes. Otherwise your comment is merely WP: I just don't like it Crawiki ( talk) 10:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I need to find time to review this further, but GScholar does show the term is widely used, the article appears to be referenced, and I am not convinced this is the same topic as failed state (it's related but state collapse is a process, failed state is the outcome, and only one of several for state collapse). I will try to read Talk:Failed_state#Merger_proposal too, but for now I think this doesn't need WP:TNT. Do ping me if you want to tell me I missed some obvious problem. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think this needs TNT. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as it is fixable. I started fixing the first few paragraphs. With nearly 100 editors editing over 10 years, with uneven access to sources, it is understandable how it got to this point. It just needs a thorough check against all the sources from beginning to end, and everything unsourced or which fails verification should be removed. It also needed to be clearer that a lot of the concepts discussed are contested and that there isn't necessarily a single "correct" interpretation in many cases. Anyway I've at least started the process. Cielquiparle ( talk) 10:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning keep, primarily on the strength of the willingness of editors to bring this up to encyclopedic standards. The subject is notable, and can be improved. BD2412 T 01:31, 26 November 2022 (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.