Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nations Controlled by the United Kingdom


 * 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 Delete as incorrect, unsourced original research. — Travis talk  18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Nations Controlled by the United Kingdom

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It would appear that this list is original research. Did the UK ever have sovereignty over Cuba? Laos? Vietnam? Tanzania definitely not (Tanganyika was a protectorate, as was Zanzibar, but Tanzania is an independent nation). Nor Timor Leste? Has been unreferenced for 9 or so months. And the word controlled is not defined within context. Россавиа Диалог 19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. It needs a lot of improvement; i.e, not referring to the colonies as the United States, but I think most of this can be sourced and done properly. Celarnor Talk to me  20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this list is OR nonsense on multiple levels. "Nations" and "controlled" are very vague. Minorca, Flordia and Bermuda aren't nations. And, I'm sorry, but when did the British ever "control" Italy? Japan? Senegal? Give me a break. Finally, the notion that the United Kingdom "controls" England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is absurd - those four nations are in voluntary union. Biruitorul (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Painful to look at. It's not just original research, it's uninformed/ignorant/don't know what you're talking about original research.  It's an indiscriminate list that looks like someone putting check marks by a list of nations.  There was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire, but it was never this sunny.  Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, bad list (uninformative) with bad criteria (minimally misleading), and no real organization to make sense of it. Yes, there were multiple competing claims for e.g. Cuba, but the British never convincingly controlled even a fraction of that island. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, absolute rubbish, some of these have never been states. -- neon white user page talk 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A bare list like this is not useful; if this kind of article is going to be done as a list, it would have to include sourceable indications of when the UK controlled each country in order to avoid spurious claims like some of those mentioned above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Try as I might, I can't fit a single consistent definition of "nation" or "control" onto this list, which backs up the claim of OR, and I don't think the author really could either. The article would appear to be a combination of vaguely-grounded facts (yes, the UK did administer various parts of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific in years gone by) and some inspired guesswork (it's early in the morning here, but the closest I think the Brits got to "controlling" Lebanon and Syria was having TE Lawrence running around the desert, and Iceland and Laos seem very unusual). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. -- Shark face  217  03:09, 21 March 2008 (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.