Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by 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 keep. Facts are not copyrightable per Feist v. Rural. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

List of countries by population (United Nations)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The United Nations website has a strict copyright which does not allow for redistribution, so this article as it stands is almost certainly a WP:G12 violation if reproduced from the website linked at the bottom of the article. However, I've gone to AfD instead of speedying it instead because I cannot figure out exactly where the data has been sourced from. The external links bring up spreadsheets rounded off to the nearest thousand, inconsistent with the article here, so I figured I'd AfD and get a few eyeballs on this in case nothing is actually amiss. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - - if copyvio, it should be speedied (and evidence of copyvio presented). If not a copyvio, I can't see how this will be deleted, though a merge to List of countries and dependencies by population could in the offing, as I don't see why we need a separate list for the specific UN estimate over others.Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I sent this to AfD since the source presented in the article - listed here - doesn't match the table. I can't G12 a file if I can't find the source, and if the source can't be found that's another problem that I see as potentially deletable. But since one of the notes says, The UN source document states: For statistical purposes, the data for China do not include Special Administrative Regions (SAR) of China (Hong Kong and Macao) and Taiwan Province of China., this probably runs afoul of the UN copyright regardless. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting that a previous proposal to merge with List of countries and dependencies by population failed to achieve consensus to merge after 11 months of discussion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge No idea why we need a separate article for this when List of countries and dependencies by population exists. Are any of the data points different enough to be worth noting? Reywas92Talk 06:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The List of countries and dependencies by population uses many different sources of information for the data and is from various points in time. This data is from one single source and one single point (2017). Thus I think it is of great value. Hopefully it can co-exist peacefully with the other article in question :P   Jjm596    &#9993;  21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the views stated by above user. 112.199.181.72 (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Procedure-wise, a copyright issue should be resolved separately, not at AFD, and based on my (incomplete) knowledge of copyright law I cannot believe that a simple list of populations can be copyrighted.  I think it is arguable that a U.N. source/perspective about population is worthwhile keeping as a list-article, distinct from possibly differing other sources/perspectives about populations.  Population numbers in general are important, have political and economic implications, and here could be important in particular for their potential to influence United Nations' official policies and aid programs. --Doncram (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment an analogous article, Articles for deletion/List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant), was just deleted on WP:COPYVIO grounds. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per Articles for deletion/List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant), there are no "creative forecast" of data here that would breach COPYVIO. Should be fine from that perspective. Britishfinance (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The projections use the "medium fertility" scenario here. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue per the other AfD are complex long-term forecasts that require a high degree of "creativity" in making. These are current estimates of populations in which the level of "creativity" in forecasting is much reduced. For example, GDP requires assumptions to estimate (hence why it is re-calculated so many times in teh following years), but WP tables of GDP data does not violate COPYVIO. Britishfinance (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, they use the same methodology for all data sets under a restrictive license. There's still "creativity" involved here. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not convinced that WP:G12 applies – I don't think this article meets the standard of blatant or unambiguous infringement. What's been copied here is not text in the usual sense, but a selection of data – essentially two columns from a spreadsheet that contains 800+ columns of data. That brings up two issues. First, WP:COPYVIO does not make it explicitly clear that data and factual information should be treated in exactly the same way as any other original written content. The omission is potentially significant, because data and compilations of data don't always receive the same standards of copyright protection as other creative works. Second, even if we assume that there's no difference between data and written material for the purposes of meeting Wikipedia's copyright policies, copying of properly cited "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" is allowed if the ten WP:NFCCP criteria are met. And I think those criteria are met here. I think the best way forward is to raise the issue at Copyright problems. Cobblet (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2019 (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.