Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most highly populated countries


 * 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 that to be there is clear consensus that this material is not included in the encyclopedia. Under normal circumstances, I'd make my boiler-plate "I'll userfy this for you" offer, but this is such an incoherent mess I'm not going to do that. Instead, if someone writes a decent article about a clearly defined topic, I'll do a history merge so that the sources can be used and anything relevant smerged. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

List of most highly populated countries

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Incoherent mass of facts that doesn't make an article. Rmhermen (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and close No policy cited by the nominator.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Is is mandatory to cite a policy? If so, I submit that the nomination implicitly references WP:INFO. The article is not a list as such, but an incoherent grab-bag of demographic facts, which appears to be attempting a job better performed by List of countries by population and the Demographics of... article series. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Redundant, as has been noted, to List of countries by population. Furthermore, the one difference - that these are the "most highly populated countries" - is vague. I could theoretically see a use for a List of the 10 largest countries by population, but that's redundant too. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article is not redundant with the populations list because this article is actually about ... um ... er ... something else. Also, I don't think it belongs on the list related discussions because it isn't a list. The two highest population countries, China and India, are one entry, in the spot after Bangladesh (which is the 9th highest). OK, so they aren't listed by population. Whatever. How are they selected? In terms of population size, we have 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 14, 22, 37, 39, 55, 63, 61, 65, 69, 72 and 83. Well, at least we have 5 of the top 10 and didn't exclude #83... You see, this is about "some of the most highly populated countries." Clearly we MUST keep this, as our wikilawyers will demand, because the nomination did not give a single, linked reason for deleting this steaming pile of random crap. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Because I don't like it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about "because it's useless?" Just because we can't keep things on the grounds of being useful doesn't mean we can't delete them for not being useful. (Actually, it does, but I'm being facetious - in this case, WP:COMMONSENSE says that this is so useless and redundant that it should be deleted, as I said above). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article is not about the most highly populated countries, but about ecodestruction due to overpopulation and other human stupidity. I'm all with the author politically, and if s/he wants to start a petition, I'll sign it, but this does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia. Matchups 19:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not a list of highly populated countries (as noted above we already do have a list of countries by population which does serve this purpose). Instead most of the places on the list are examples of problems caused by overpopulation (though some, such as the UK, USA and Ethiopia are merely described as having high population, population density or resource use). We could rename it to List of countries with overpopulation problems and get rid of large portions of content but a list at that title would have hopelessly vague inclusion criteria. Hut 8.5 20:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article does not actually describe what its title suggests; if it did, it would duplicate List of countries by population. And we already have an article about the apparently intended topic of this article: Overpopulation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete, article is completely off topic and says nothing not already covered by others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be a plain falsehood as the facts presented in this article clearly have a coherent theme. Like most of our articles, it could use some work but our editing policy is to keep such imperfect drafts in mainspace rather than deleting them.  The article seems to be a spinoff or detailing of facts related to overpopulation and so the worst case is that we would merge into an article of that sort.  Warden (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The nomination does not meet any of the criteria in WP:SK. A merge to overpopulation (which would have to be a highly selective merge) would be impractical because the size of the target article is already getting to the state where a split would be a good idea. Hut 8.5 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant clause of WP:SK is "nominations which are so erroneous...". As for overpopulation, the size of that article does indeed indicate that we might split.  The article in question indicates that a split by geography might be helpful.  Overpopulation in India is already a blue link and we might divide the topic along such lines: Overpopulation in Africa, for example. Warden (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the nominator's actions were unquestionably vandalism or disruption? Right. And even if that description was accurate you've missed that that clause only applies if nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. Hut 8.5 17:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've missed nothing. I'm not trying to predict the outcome here &mdash; I'm just giving my opinion of what ought to happen.  It is not unusual for editors to give contrary opinions but the conventional wisdom is that this is not a vote.  It may be that the closer will discard other opinions such as "because I don't like it.".  Or other editors might change their minds.  I'm not the only editor to comment on the weakness of the nomination and my view remains that it is so counterfactual that it should not be taken seriously. Warden (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy fuck. Please read the explanation immediately preceding the "Because I don't like it". This so-called article is not what its title claims it is, which would be the top several countries in List of countries by population. Yeah, let's split that off into List of top 20 countries by population and List of countries by population other than the 20 largest, that would be brilliant. The "coherent theme" in the article is that the article's creator thinks the listed countries/continents/regions/states are too densely populated (check the history). None of the sources reflect the creating editor's opinions. OK, so let's rename the article, remove the pieces that don't belong (all of them), ditch all of the sources and find sources to attach countries to the new title. But, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DON'T DELETE THIS! (instead, keep the article and change absolutely everything about it). Holy fuck. (Did I already say that? Too bad.) Here's the deal: Go ahead and keep the article. Let me know when you're done. Then, let's remove all of the sources as off topic (unless the sources actually say that "China and India" is one of the "Most highly populated countries", along with #83 and two US states...). Next, we'll yank all of the content as unsourced. We'll have a blank article, but at least we'll have saved ourselves from the sin of deletion. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are 64 sources in the article currently and these include broad works about population pressure such as Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. So, your assertion that "None of the sources reflect the creating editor's opinions" seems quite wild and unlikely.  As for the title of the article, this may be adjusted using the ordinary processes of move, split or merger.  This is all ordinary editing which would be consistent with our editing policy.  Warden (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing to that example, it is a very good illustration of SummerPhD's point. The book by Ehrlich is used to back up a statement that countries can be overpopulated even if they are wealthy and have lots of land area. This is followed by a list of sourced statements about problems supplying water in Arizona. The implication the article's author wanted to convey is that Arizona is overpopulated, but this isn't backed up by the sources. Ehrlich doesn't mention Arizona anywhere in the book and the various sources about Arizona don't mention overpopulation. The section is therefore synthesis: it puts together two sources to reach a conclusion found in neither. This is symptomatic of the article as a whole - the entire thing is a series of statements cobbled together by the author to try and show that countries are overpopulated. The fact that all this stuff is sourced doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. We could move the page to a title that more accurately reflected its contents, but moving it to List of pages I think are overpopulated isn't going to do any more than highlight the fundamental problem. Hut 8.5 12:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you admit that your !vote is incompatible with the relevant guideline? And that by trying to argue that your view is compatible with the relevant guideline you have implicitly accused the nominator of acting in bad faith? If you just think the nomination is wrong, say so. Don't try to get the debate closed early. Hut 8.5 18:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, my !vote is quite compatible because the !votes of other editors are subject to change or being discounted. What you don't seem to understand is that this is a discussion not a vote.  Like other editors, I lay out my position and arguments hoping to persuade or otherwise achieve consensus.  This is a process in which the position of the participants is meant to be flexible.  We are not casting irrevocable ballots.  As for the good faith of the nominator; I have no opinion about that.  I just observe that when he says that the article is incoherent then he either does not understand the word or is misusing it.  He makes no policy-based argument and just seems to be making an I-don't-like-it/it's rubbish case in ignorance of our editing policy.  My view remains that such a flimsy, counterfactual nomination should be speedily dismissed. Warden (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what you're getting at here. We only close debates as "speedy keep" if they meet one of the criteria in WP:SK, but as I've pointed out this one doesn't. It is possible to speedily close a debate because of weaknesses in the nomination, but they would have to rise to the level of disruption and if someone else argues the page should be deleted then the nomination can't be speedily closed. If you think the nomination is mistaken or weak or that the nominator has ignored some policy that's just irrelevant since those points should be discussed in a debate rather than the debate being speedily closed. Hut 8.5 12:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. this morning. Diego (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Update I have done some work on the article.  I find that there are two other articles which seem quite relevant to the theme here: List of countries by real population density (based on food growing capacity) and physiological density.  They need work too as they lack the prose which the article in question might supply.  By bringing together such incomplete articles, we might reasonably hope to make a satisfactory whole. Warden (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So effectively you're trying to rewrite the article from scratch. If we have to go to that extreme then that's a very good argument for deletion. Hut 8.5</b> 12:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But only of the old article, which effectively disappears anyway.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 21:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

''Although normally disapproved of during an AfD, in this case I think it will clarify the discussion to change the title of the article to avoid the word list--because the article is not a list. I'm moving it to Countries of high population density. ''  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No point to this article at all. I'm not even sure what highly populated means. Juggalo1010 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as incoherent and unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not sure why so much effort would be put in to save a topic that's a mix of synthesis and blabber.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Worth fixing. it's actually a fairly good base for an article on the effects of over-population. The references are appropriate. The arguments for deletion are not merely unfounded on policy, but unfounded altogether, or totally contrary to policy: one person doesn't understand what "highly populated means" -- it's not a good word choice,but her means high population density. Another thinks its unnecessary: I do not know what is meant by an article being unnecessary--very little is necessary here, in the sense we could not have an encyclopedia of somer sort without them, but our goal is much broader: we try to have a good comprehensive encyclopedia, and very little that can be written about with sources is inappropriate. Another person objects that the original author is trying to improve the article. Two people think it's redundant to having a list of coutnies by population, when it;s obvious there is much more detailed content about the individual countries, one or two find it an incoherent assemblage of facts: it's actually a fairly organized discussion, with the material covered pertinent to the topics.   And one is, in so many words, because I don't like it--when challenged, explained further as "Holy fuck". I perhaps feel similarly,  not for the same reason: a concerted effort trying to defy the policy that WP is a work in progress, nd that relatively unsophisticated editors can learn something by working here-- an approach to articles and users that will destroy the encyclopedia    DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that we already have a List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density, what are you proposing that this article should have as its subject matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read the two articles or are you going by the mere titles?: one is a list of every country in the world, giving one line of basic demographic; the only is an article of the countries of the very highest population density, giving a discussion of the factors involved at moderate length, suitable for a summary.   DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was "an article of the countries of the very highest population density" you might have a point. It isn't. Compare the entries at the top of the two lists. This one is an arbitrary collection of waffle about various countries cherry-picked by whoever felt like adding them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete whether populated means population or density, we have a list for that. For whatever is being pushed under cover of this; it seems subjective at best and OR mostly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I consider DGG's entirely arbitrary move of this article, while it was involved in an AfD which was clearly going to end in deletion as disruptive. I have asked DGG to revert. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Is that the final title? From the few I've looked at, several of the sources don't use that phrase or anything of similar meaning. With all of the arguments to change pretty much everything about the article, I'm having trouble keeping track of what the article is supposed to be. How about if we just add sources about a Pokemon, remove all the original sources, rewrite the article, rename it and keep it? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "final title" -- if the article is kept, it can be moved again, by consensus--afd is not necessarily the best place to decide. the title should describe the content, and I think mine does, but others may think differently. Whatever the article is, it's about as much a list as it is about Pokemon.  There is one aspect of my title which is certainly not arbitrary: the articles is not a list, but a somewhat naïve attempt at a general article, with a poor choice of title.  The article may or may not be acceptable; I think the most critical question is whether it is OR.   Those voting because they think it a list are giving non policy based and non fact based reasons, and if it is deleted under that misunderstanding, it will be very likely overturned at deletion review. What it needs is to have the discussion continuing with the proper question, whether the contents of the article is acceptable.  DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to discuss whether the contents of an article are acceptable, we'd have to have a vague idea regarding what the article was supposed to be about. Nobody seems to know. If you think that there is a subject, start an article on it. Attempting to 'rescue' this incoherent heap of waffle because you think you might be able to salvage bits of it makes no sense at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The new and improved title still doesn't seem to describe what this "article" is supposed to be about. "India and China" is not a country, neither are Arizona, California or the Petén region. I understand articles are always subject to further editing. However, the primary problem I have with the article is that there is no indication of a notable topic: the article doesn't have a clear indication of a topic and the sources do not support the vague topics the article might (some day) be about. Without a topic, the sources cannot demonstrate that the topic is notable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy. As it stands, I would recommend a delete of the article.  The title is clearly wrong but it is not really clear what it should be changed to: as the article compares nation states, subnational regions, and supranational agglomerations.  The content is also troubling since it combines cited facts so as to draw a conclusion not supported by the sources, classic WP:OR by synthesis.  It might be salvageable if it were retitled and rewritten from scratch but is vacuously true of any article.  However, Warden and DGG have opined that the content is a worthwhile starting point for a policy compliant article.  I do not share their optimism but see no reason not to give any interested party the chance to prove me wrong, but not in the mainspace until it is cleaned up and renamed to something that accurately describes the content.  Eluchil404 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2012 (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.