Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicontinental country

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bicontinental country

Original research. RickK 00:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks thorough, but what does it mean? Delete JFW | T@lk 01:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep, NOT delete, will someone state his objections, please? This article compiles the information about these border-cases gathered from the main wikipedia articles about the continents and states involved. I think that instead of continius fighting about what country to include where - this article clears the things out and everyone should be happy with the compromise - also this article acts as some sort of a mover of the unresolvable debate about continent borders from the main pages to a separate 'borderline cases'-page. Also this article reflects the geographical reality. Anyway, even if some information is wrong, why not correct it instead of delete the whole article??? Unsigned by User:62.204.151.1
  • As you say, it duplicates information. How about turning it into a list, instead of rehashing stuff from other articles? JFW | T@lk 01:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it not currently like a list? There are some explanations given, but it could not be plain list... it should be noted WHAT is listed... that's why there are explanations. I think that the information about that subject is much better synthesied here - in one common place, where eveyone can look into (or change if needed) when some debate about states on the continent borders arises... User:62.204.151.1
      • It isn't a list because its title isn't "List of bicontinental countries". Ben Standeven 05:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see. If I create a list, but don't call it a list, it isn't a list. RickK 05:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, appears to be secondary research, not original, with the CIA World Factbook as the primary source. Spain is missing though. Kappa 01:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 01:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but transwiki; This is a very unique original research project. Maybe it could go to an atlas book in wikibooks? Tygar 01:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's trivia, but *useful* trivia, probably deserving of a place in Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 02:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the author can provide a source for his drawing of the borders, especially the Europe/Asia border and where is he getting the maps from. ?Cantus…☎ 03:04, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Europe/Asia border is drawn along the Caucaus watershed-Caspian Sea-Ural river-Ural montain-Arctic Ocean. This is the most recognized path. The other - KumaManychRivers-Caspian Sea-Emba river-Ural mountain variant is much rarely used, but we can add it too for completecy.Alinor 07:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Americas and Asia/Africa border is drawn along the Isthmus/Canal of Suez/Panama - as stated in many Wikipedia articles. The Oceania/Asia islands are choosed according to the oceania's Melanesia Wikipedia page. Alinor 08:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See the article discussion page Talk:Bicontinental_country#some things to add
  • Note that the exact definition of continents is disputed - see Continent. Radiant! 19:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; looks interesting and could be expanded in lots of ways. For example, Turkey's bid to join the EU is based on its partial European geography, whereas objections from other European countries are based on its predominantly Asian culture. Other countries have similar political and cultural ambiguities. Psychonaut 04:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; the Europe/Asia border is as I've always seen it drawn, along the Urals and the Caucasus. The North/South America border is harder to argue, since I've never seen it drawn there, so I'd rather see sources for that. But it's interesting nonetheless. Alfvaen 04:26, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: No context, no discussion, no explanation, no ramifications, no significance. It's a list article disguised as a discursive article. What are the effects of going over a continental border? Is there anything historical about this? Do the locals know they're crossing borders? What is there to say about this? If it's a list article, then, well, the battle against lists has been lost, but it's clearly not an explanatory article. Geogre 04:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See the rant at the discussion page for some explanation of 'why is it written/should be keeped'
  • That are only geographical borders, not political state borders, so locals don't have to know when crossing them. This is like knowing/not knowing the apple falls becouse of gravity. 62.204.151.1 07:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Article is not original research, so nomination is unfounded. --Centauri 06:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is quite an interesting article and I think it's encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 07:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep there's useful information here, it's a topic which could easily be encyclopedic and the solution to problems with the article is to edit it. Mozzerati 08:34, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Keep. Rl 11:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sorry, I can tell someone did a lot of work on this, but this topic is simply not encyclopedic. There's nothing unifying about these countries as a class that justifies an article just about them. --Angr 12:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep have you ever seen what is going on when somebody edits articles about those countries, trying to claim that they are in one of the two continents? Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Well, if there is no consensus on whether a country is in one continent, or the other, or both, then you cannot force a consensus simply by creating a list like this. Radiant! 18:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like someone is trying to claim every country in Europe is bicontinental. — JIP | Talk 13:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, which is rather a pity, as we could really do with an article on the topic (see the edit wars over templates declaring which countries are or aren't in the continent of Europe). James F. (talk) 18:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

again this originality...this is just a compilation from another sources (I have mentioned them multiple times on multiple places around here), I don't see original, creative parts, what do you consider 'original research'?62.204.151.1 18:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I believe the problem is this: if the listed countries have nothing in particular in common other than the fact that they are considered to be on two continents, then the list is as arbitrary as List of countries with an R in their name - ergo, not encyclopedic. If the listed countries are alleged to have something else in common, then the article would be original research. Either way, delete. As a side point, inclusion on this list is arbitrary depending on from what POV you define 'continent' - see Continent for details. Radiant! 18:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

The common thing is that they are bicontinental and this is quite enough reason to make such a list - look at the edit wars, witch errup everytime one such country is put on 'the other' continent. This article is a good place to present the subject from a neutral point of view (if you object something in this article - let's discuss and change, not delete) and to release the other articles of these edit wars. (rant).

Look at the Europe and Template:Europe discussions to see the 'popularity' of these edit wars. They are practiced by MANY PEOPLE. So it looks that there IS NEED for the information on bicontinental countries to be compiled (and improved) at one single place (not individualy on each country - one time for Russia, next time for Cyprus, again for Turkey, etc.) - I suggest this place to be here.62.204.151.1 19:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Since there are edit wars about this subject, creating a new article that explains your POV is not a very good way with dealing with them. It seems to me that the people participating in those edit wars would not agree with the contents of the Bicont page. Hence, it gives them an extra arena to fight edit wars in. Instead, you should go to WP:RFC and resolve the issue. Radiant! 22:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• If someone thinks that something in the article is POV - just say and it will be corrected. Also, this is not "one more arena" for the continent-borders edit wars - this will be THE place for this information, debate, edit war, etc. - the pages of continents and countries will become NPOV and point to this place here, were we should also made a NPOV explanation of the subject.62.204.151.1 18:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep.Canaen I see no reason to delete the information. Sometimes it's good to repeat information.
• Delete. I have to agree in large part with the points made above by Radiant!. While the information is interesting it is trivial at best, it can also be viewed as inaccurate at worst. The fact that continental boundaries themselves are disputed means the information in this article is inherently disputable as well. Either way it is too arbitrary and too trivial to be encyclopedic. Arkyan 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not too trivial, judjing by the debates about the subject, that are participated by many people (on the mentioned here pages and other places).

If some information in the article is disputed (or POV) - this can be easily corrected. 62.204.151.1 18:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is surely in need of a bit of cleanup, but this is not merely original research. All information about area is fairly well known geography if the continental boundaries are agreed upon. Sjakkalle 08:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If there's controversy about where the borders are between continents make note of it in the article. I don't see how this is original research any more than any other article that compiles multiple references. --Aranae 08:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the page, but maybe as a list. In the least, it needs to be cleaned up and the overlapping information should be linked to on the other pages. At any rate, I see no reason to delete it entirely. Uris 03:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is definitely encyclopedic. --Tv 00:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• After all this discussion, still have to echo User:Jfdwolff. It's detailed, but seemingly purposeless. Delete. Lacrimosus 07:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep - David Gerard 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with angr, Geogre and Radiant! above. The article does not show a meaningful connection between, say, the Asia/Europe countries and the Asia/Oceania countries. It might be useful to have a page specifically about the Europe/Asia controversy. In fact, it looks like that was the point of this page, and the other bicontinental countries were added to make it look more general.FreplySpang 16:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. but needs to be cleaned up, and some context given (i.e., significance?)--Briangotts 22:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - irrelevant and impossible to get interesting or relevant. Borders between continents are too arbitrarily drawn — in Eurasia, the Americas and in the sea — to make it possible for this to become anything else than an weak shaddow of pseudo-science. How and why should it matter for a country if it is bicontinental or not? The answer is, it doesn't, although Wikipedia with this article try to give the impression it does. /Tuomas 16:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The relevance of this sort of seemingly trivial information may require several steps of inference. For example, I could see relevance to this sort of information when dealing with the politics of conservation. Indonesia's conservation strategy should take Wallace's Line into account and potentially treat things very differently on either side. Turkey may have a similar concern across the strait of Bosporus. Panama and Egypt are both in an unual situation with the existence of the Panama and Suez canals. These have isolated once contiguous biological ranges and have led to geographic reproductive isolation among populations on either side. I suspect there's plenty of relevance to this sort of discussion outside of biology as well. Admittedly, borders of continents are somewhat arbitrary, but I think this information is still potentially of some value. --Aranae 01:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's much better to have this than it is to ignore the issue by deleting the article at this point. --Joy [shallot] 00:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyking 04:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.