Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries

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 Speedy keep Andrwsc 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries

I know this will be shouted down, but this list is massively misleading to people coming to Wikipedia looking for facts, since it's based on mostly arbitrary criteria. It would be much better if this page simply directed people to the sovereign state/unrecognised territory/etc lists and let them make their own mind up. Dtcdthingy 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Then why bother with the nom? Keep this featured article. Leuko 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing to Speedy Keep per User:Black Falcon. Leuko 22:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep since the large and detailed section explaining "Entities included in this article" clears up a lot of confusion, has links to the other lists, and IMHO effectively deals with the charge that the list is "massively misleading". - Mauco 22:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really. If it said "this list is completely made up, please don't take it as fact", you'd have a point. --Dtcdthingy 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. One of the criteria for a speedy keep is nominating a featured article for deletion--well, this obviously qualifies. The introductory portion makes it very clear what is and is not included in the article. -- Black Falcon 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close Nominator is not actually asking for deletion, but for a redirect/disambiguation. That is a clean-up issue, not a deletion criteria. Take it to the talk page, not here. Mister.Manticore 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Encycloedic and useful list, and I'm not even understanding the nom's reasoning. Not really arbitrary, and if it is, this is a content dispute, not deletion material. Part Deux 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Encyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• The speediest of keeps I'm surprised no one has used "listcruft" to try to delete this; perhaps we're getting better. :-) Carlossuarez46 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep! Nomination is completely bad faith. This is a featured list, for crying out loud! I think the intro is well written and explains the criteria by which entries appear on this list (or not) very logically. Andrwsc 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep! as per above. Makgraf 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - The article is clear about what is included its a FL etc. Dalf | Talk 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Artyicle looks absolutely fine to me, the sort of thing you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jules1975 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep I must say I was tempted to go against and say delete but looking at it someone has taken time to explain things and how its listed whcih is good. To be honest - and Id welcome comments - my only issue is why you would come to this article, I mean if I wanted to find info on a country Id search for ti direct by name - not by coming to this list and then selecting it from there. --PrincessBrat 14:28, 5 March 2007 (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.