Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by past population (United Nations)


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by past population (United Nations)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

according to WP:NOT article should not be included Sehmeet singh (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments I'd hate to see this one go. The information provided is valuable and perhaps difficult to find without extensive searching and perhaps personal tabulations. Whether or not the information was derived from statistical data is unknown from the article. The article lacks verifiable source of a secondary and tertiary nature. The article is long but thorough, I'm sure. (e.g. Hey! They left our country off the list.). It also appears to be original research from the scant information we have regarding its sources. I'm going for the wildcard with this one ...... IAR.  =)      --User:Warrior777 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is poorly sourced... because it just has a single secondary source (the United Nations Population Division) which is both prestigious and authoritative. In fact, its extensive tables have not been written by hand at all (which could have easily derived into potential typing errors), but instead they have been macro-generated and massively dumped from the cited or referenced UN Excel spreadsheet into the Wikipedia table format (as I meant in the corresponding edit summary). And so this means that literally 100% of their content is verifiable.


 * Even the regional and (sub)continental subtotals were directly taken from the UN figures (although I decided to place them in independent smaller tables for clarity reasons), unlike this similar article that I originally created in January 2009, in which I myself had to perform an automatic addition of such data (from USCB estimates).


 * The only things I added to it were the average annual growth, as was later suggested by user Mightymights. However, that doesn't represent an original research, unless you think that relative simple standard mathematical calculations such as the exponential function or logarithms constitute OR.


 * By the way, here you can see the article's first version, without the yearly changes.


 * Regards from Argentina :-)
 * MaxBech1975 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Transwiki. This is useful sourced information.  But I am not sure that it is an encyclopedia article.  If a better home, preferably hosted by Wikimedia can be found fine.  If not keeping it is probably the best course of action.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove from WP This kind of raw data just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Better move to some other space.  Or else provide a link to the original table with the UN. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose : useful article. Mightymights (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment was posted on the talk page, i copied it here. I am neutral at this point in discussion, as im not familiar with policy on articles made up primarily of data like this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with List of countries by past and future population - Although I should preface my !vote with "Userfy and engage the editors of the aforementioned in how best to Merge". I believe also this info should be 'selectively' merged into each countries Article as, upon random checking, most seem to use the CIA World Factbook only as a cite for their current populations, and make no mentions of their past population. This info could provide a wealth of cites for all sorts of articles, and I would not like to loose it. Right now it is a datadump. To the Article Creator: Please, get in touch with the folks at Bots. You obviously have a talent, they can/will help you to develop it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ► Markab -@ 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR wikipedia is not for lists of any type. WP:NOTSTATS, as mentioned above, applies too!
 * ... of ANY type ??? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. From Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.". This information is exactly the sort of content that one would find in a gazetteer and so is perfectly within the scope of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As justifiable as other lists of sourced data. The  arguments for deletion amounts in the end to the strange, " WP is not for lists of any type," which is clearly against policy .   DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 4 August 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.