Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most populous nations by 2025


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

List of most populous nations by 2025

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL because no one knows what the population will be 16 years from now, much less if the countries will be the same. For example, 20 years ago, the USSR was one of the most populous countries and now it doesn't even exist. It is nice for the United Nations to put together a list like this, but it is purely speculation based on current trends. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with World population or World population estimates since it is sourced material and the topic of world (over)population is indeed notable. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't talking at all about overpopulation, it is just a list saying what the population should be in 16 years... Tavix (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nobody knows but these are projections, estimates and quite informative. --Muhammad (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with World population estimates. The article by itself violates WP:CRYSTAL and does not indicate any reason as to why there is any significance to population in 2025. Eauhomme (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. In 1989, who'd have thought that the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and FR Yugoslavia wouldn't exist in 2009? Not to mention the reunifications experienced by both Germany and Yemen? So what's to say that the countries that exist now will be around in 2025? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  10:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to speculation from notable, reliable sources: "Of course, we do and should have articles about [...] credible research that embody predictions" -- which is clearly a description of this article. JulesH (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:CRYSTAL, point 3 says: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." Even though it is from a reliable source, the article is purely speculation and therefore fails WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A good rule for distinguishing between real crystal balls from articles that might be kept is to ask, "can sources agree on anything about the future events, or is essentially subjective from source to source?" This article fails that test. WillOakland (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a test based in any policy or guideline. WP:NPOV says when sources disagree, we report all significant views. DHowell (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's based on point 3 under WP:CRYSTAL. Your interpretation would essentially nullify WP:CRYSTAL and require coverage of anything about which speculation has been published. WillOakland (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a crystal ball. There is no basis for agreement of sources here. WillOakland (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. These are reliably sourced predictions, not unverifiable speculation. Speculation and extrapolation are original research when it is done by Wikipedia editors, not when it is done by reliable sources. The arguments given to delete would also easily apply to Ultimate fate of the universe, an article which is clearly encyclopedic, but which is also certainly documenting speculation, and there is clearly not agreement among all sources. But to demonstrate disagreement with these population figures, you need another reliable source giving conflicting information, which if found should be included in the article, per WP:NPOV. The figures given here are taken seriously by other reliable sources. DHowell (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The fate of the universe is a subject about which entire scientific theories have been developed and to which careers have been devoted. It is not expected to resolve itself any time soon. To compare that to a ranking produced by one UN agency is, I think, misguided. WillOakland (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. 2025 seems an an arbitrary date. Maybe merge some of the information into one of the more general articles. Aubergine (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – This list is not viable as a general topic, for several reasons. (1) It presents a single estimate (the UNFPA estimate) as the estimate. (2) It limits itself to being a list of "most populous" countries and thereby forces itself to use an arbitrary cutoff; there is no reason to choose the "top 20" instead of the "top 10", "top 25", or "top 42". (3) It uses the term "nation" interchangeably with "country", which is definitely a mistake. (4) The choice of 2025 seems, at first glance, to be entirely arbitrary; in reality, it is dictated by the source, but it is something we should avoid for a general topic list. While all of these problems could be fixed by renaming to List of United Nations Population Fund estimates of country populations in 2025 and expanding the list to include estimates for all countries, such a list would go against the principle that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Quite useful.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * Could you please indicate why you think this is useful and, more importantly, how it meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia excludes much information that is useful in certain contexts for certain people. Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we find some old list of theirs, predicting the population in the then distant year 2000, and see if they were anywhere near right? I don't think their predictions mean anything, unless they've gotten something right in past predictions.  Its like the people who kept saying that by 1970 we'd have another ice age, still saying its going to happen soon, or that the rain forests will finally be wiped out like they said it'd be decades ago.  If predictions never come even close to being true, then there is no reason to have them.   D r e a m Focus  05:01, 16 March 2009 (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.