Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by date of uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power


 * 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. The "keep" opinions must be disregarded because they do not address, let alone rebut, the policy-based deletion rationale that there are no reliable sources treating this topic (see, WP:V and WP:NOR). This does not preclude a sourced recreation as proposed by Neutrality.  Sandstein  12:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

List of countries by date of uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article lacks evidence that RSs cover "uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power". The definition of "uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power" is inherently imprecise - what about the US civil war? What about countries that gradually evolve to become democracies? We need RSs to agree on a definition before we start making lists - but there is little evidence RSs have done so. Most countries that have become democracies at a precise date commemorate that date, and don't pay much, if any attention to the date when power first changed hands, etc, etc, etc. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Suppose there was an article "list of humans by largest feet size", with a citation to a RS saying someone had the largest feet ever. But now we have a problem. What if someone has one foot larger than another? What are we ranking by - foot volume, foot length, foot width? What if someone has a medical condition that makes temporarily swollen - does that count or only the regular unswollen size? Now, if there are lots of RSs that deal with this issue we let them sort these issues out for themselves and report on their conclusion. But there is no evidence RSs have evolved an unambiguous definition of "uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power" and assigned it weight.NPalgan2 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not a reason for deletion, just improvement. --162.248.67.4 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Q  T C 19:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix. Apparently this page is being featured today on Reddit, so expect a lot of traffic to the article -- and maybe to here. I'm not sure today was a good today to begin an AfD discussion of this page... Herostratus (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is impossible to fix the article. How would you deal with the issues raised? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, by working on the talk page. The phrase "date of uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power" is fairly easy to parse and understand. "date" we understand as meaning "a point in history", and "uninterrupted" as "continuing with no interruption" (with "interruption" being "to disturb or halt an established process") and similarly "peaceful" is an English word that has meaning and so does the phrase "transfer of power" in the sense of changing the administration of a state.
 * Even if we could do all those things, this article would still violate WP:SYN. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course at the margins you can have discussion over what exactly does or does not constitute a "peaceful transfer of power". But intelligent humans can discuss these things and arise at reasonable consensus, I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How can we do that without violating WP:NOR? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable point. I think we ought to be able to, but I haven't studied the matter, so I no longer feel sure. Herostratus (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for OR concerns. One man's peaceful transition is another man's...well, there are options. Mobocracy, for instance. And while I'm on the topic, why is Germany listed "since" 1969? Why not 1948? These things/dates are obviously not self-evident. Would the German federal election, July 1932 have counted as "peaceful"? or the Enabling Act of 1933? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can point to reliable sources that could enable this page to be improved to meet Wikipedia standards (particularly WP:SYN). Grover cleveland (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete because the information is not interesting (just a list of dates when a country started having uninterrupted elections?) or accurate (Civil war ignored so USA can have the #1 spot). T0lk (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix - Nominee has presented no policy-based reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The list title is so vague no one knows that exactly it means, violating WP:LISTV. And there is no evidence RSs cover this issue, so we can't pick a criterion without violating WP:WEIGHT and also we can't 'fix' it without violating WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't zero in on one particular feature but I can't shake the feeling that this entire affair has been created to advance the ludicrous notion that United States of America is number one in peaceful transitions, and the bestest country in the would -- that is, if one discounts the fact that the country was split down the middle and drenched in gore during the Civil War. It's so absurd that I just can't get past it. So much so that the list as currently composed is a violation of WP:POV, and in a sense, WP:COAT. The United States Civil War, which accounted for more American deaths than in all other U.S. wars combined, was not peaceful. Abraham Lincoln being democratically re-elected by voters not residing in the Confederate States of America -- who were at war and busily trying to kill those who were voting in that election -- doesn't make this a period of peaceful transition. Delete as currently composed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Gut the article (removing unsourced content) and then merge/redirect to a new page, peaceful transition of power or power transition in democracies. The concept is noteworthy and appears to some extent in the academic literature (but should not be confused with power transition theory, which deals with a separate concept in international relations). I don't think there's sufficient sources for a list article. Neutralitytalk 18:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, good idea; can you suggest a reference in a political science encyclopedia or similar RS that gives a definition of "peaceful transition of power" that could be used to kickstart such article. I searched a bit but couldn't find anythin goodNPalgan2 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Political Transitions in Dominant Party Systems: Learning to Lose (Routledge, 2008) (an anthology) seems relevant. Neutralitytalk 05:14, 14 November 2016 (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.