Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by external debt


 * 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   keep and cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by external debt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

1. Discussion in talk page. 2. I suspect there has been vandalism, but it is difficult for me to check the numbers. For these reasons, this article may be dangerously unreliable and too much hassle to put right. AWhiteC (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — The-Pope (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It is our policy not to include excessively raw statistics. If readers want this information we should direct them to a source such as the IMF which tabulates these properly.  And this is best done in a summary article such as External debt.  Note that these figures are easily misunderstood or misrepresented.  The UK has a very large figure - almost as big as the USA.  This is being used in press scare stories but mostly represents the gross external liabilities of the financial institutions based in the City of London.  This has to be taken together with their corresponding assets because these institutions trade money back and forth on a grand scale and what really matters are the differences which determine the net profit/loss.  Failing to do so is contrary to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list easily passes WP:LSC with a clearly defined criteria. Flaws in figures and updated data need to be addressed but not through an all-out deletion. In the mean time, a warning template, such as Disputed or Expert-subject, can be added. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not clearly defined because the timescale of the ranking is unclear. The statistics used span several years and so the list does not compare like with like. Warden (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 23:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep excellent economic topic. There is a chart with same topic in last weeks Economist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that wasn't net debt? (This is gross debt.) AWhiteC (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * being an "excellent topic" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. We revert vandalism, we don't bin the whole article. If the article is unreliable due to lack of reliable sources, then that is justifiable for deletion. However, if there are reliable sources such as the IMF but the article is in a bad shape then we should WP:SOFIXIT, not delete the article outright just because it is "too much hassle". - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. If the article is kept, could the appropriate tags be added so that someone can go through it. Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it needs tagging with a "do not trust" warning of some sort, until it is fixed. When fixed, it should have a good explanation at the top saying (1) it is public plus private, and (2) it is gross not net. It could seriously mislead people in its present state! AWhiteC (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2011 (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.