Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of socialist countries (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per IAR. This nomination was the nominator's very first edit, and furthermore, the issuing seems only to be with sourcing. This can easily be sourced, and unless I'm mistaken anything that can be easily sourced shouldn't be deleted. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of socialist countries
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article has been nominated for deletion a few months ago, and the result of the discussion was to keep mainly because most users felt that while the article was badly written and biased, it could be improved. However, it had not improved, because it couldn't. A list of socialist countries could not be NPOV, as socialism is an ideology that had many different characteristics, definitions and interpretations. There is no neutral way to give a list of socialist countries in the world, and so instead the article gave a list of countries (solely by original research) which described themselves as socialist in their constitutions somehow. But imagine if there is a list of countries which described themselves as capitalist. It would be largely unrepresentative and biased, and would surely not be encyclopedic. Indeed, the introduction of this article itself described the article as unrepresentative and meaningless. To conclude, the article is useless original research and could not be improved because there could not be a credible and definitive source for a list of socialist countries. While a rename to "list of countries which describe themselves as socialist" may be a solution, it would, in my opinion, be of little encyclopedic value and would only serve as a fertile ground for ideological debate. Hence I propose a delete. Naur (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - List of socialists and all other articles of lists of socialists have recently been deleted. The main discussion is here. The rationale is similar. Naur (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- I did not participate in the previous AFD, but I think the conclusion of that one is correct- keep and improve. In response to nom's assertion that it can't be improved, I respectfully disagree. Just because it HASN'T been improved, doesn't mean it CAN'T be improved. This is a viable topic that can be fixed with proper sourcing and re-writing. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you elaborate? What would the sources be? There couldn't be a list of socialist countries in the world. No one could make such a list, because definitions of socialism differ. Imagine if there is, say, a list of capitalist countries. Imagine the nightmares it would cause. So should, like the article currently does, simply include countries which describe themselves as socialist in their names or constitutions? First off, this would become original research. And second, this would be "list of countries which describe themselves as socialist", instead of "list of socialist countries". You see the problem? To elaborate, many countries in Europe ruled by parties from Socialist International is not included, apparently because some users think social democracy is not socialism. That's original research and a NPOV nightmare, and we couldn't fix it because there's no source out there that could clearly define an ideology for us. Would Arab socialism, which is anti-colonial in nature, be regarded as socialism? Some agree and some disagree. There is no source that could resolve a dispute that is ideological in nature. Naur (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not really seeing any problem with this list that can't be fixed by cleanup and attention. LOTS of cleaup and attention mind you. But just because it would be hard doesn't mean giving up is the better option. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are loads of sourced to back up this concept . Yes, the current article is a mess, and pretty bad, but improvement is at least feasible. If not improved with sources, though, then this could be considered original research and deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you click through your sources, you'll find that every list is different. Which list should we take? It is perfectly possible to create a list by your own definitions. It is impossible to create an encyclopedic article of it. I disagree that the current article is a mess. On the contrary, I think it's the most objective list possible, because the inclusion criteria gives little room for POV, which would run rampant if we attempt to source them (the POV coming from deciding which source to use). The major problem remains that there is no certain definition of socialism, and what countries it include. In one of the lists you provided, for example, there are "mixed socialist economies" and "socialist economies". The problem is best described by the source itself (third source, the page after that): "are the categories really conceptually distinct?..the distinction between mixed socialist and socialist is troublesome to apply..any classification of countries into types of politico-economic regimes is bound to be time dependent.." The source included this list solely to elaborate the problems one would face in an attempt to give a list of socialist countries. Your source explains exactly why this article should be deleted. Naur (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep — Certainly a discriminate list. I would like to see more verifiability of all these socialist states, past and present, but that can easily be found with various papers from the media or even in academic research. Also, I, even though I personally do not agree with socialism, do not think that this is NPOV. Obviously, you cannot go around and declare every left-leaning/leftist state as socialist without verification that they have declared themselves as such (that would amount to synth/OR). MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources likely exist in the articles about the various countries discussing where on the socialism spectrum these countries exist, and the political orientation of nations is obviously notable in terms of world politics. If there is disagreement about whether North Korea is socialist, sources can be presented on each side, such as the refs in the North Korea article from the Times, the Telegraph, and the New York Times describing North Korea as a Stalinist dictatorship. The fact that someone can quibble about definitions does not make it impossible to have such an article. This is a content dispute, not a notability dispute. The list is discriminate and encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2008 (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.