Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement


 * 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. Jersey Devil 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has been tagged with Original research since October, and requests for verification on the talk page have not resulted in any verifiable material being presented. (In fact one user even stated that "finding referencies might be tricky".)
 * Delete (my nomination). Dagnabit 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Brings very unrelated regions and historical events under common and vaguely defined umbrella. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Entities sui generis have played an important historical and political role in international law and this is a useful collection of them. The article needs expansion and rewriting, but there is a useful base to work with and it should stay. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How does several states recognising that Norway has sovereignty over Svalbard make it sui generis? Will you be adding references to the claims made in the list/article? Dagnabit 01:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Allows the listing of places that are listed in List of Countries that are neither sovereign states or dependencies. Each entity is unique but have some similar characteristics such as having a ccTLD. These entities are considered 'Areas of Special Sovereignty' by the US State Department —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shocktm (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - the problem is not WP:NOR, but that the information isn't sourced. However, it is quite easily verifiable (see, e.g., ).  Keep the article and add an "unreferenced" tag to it.  -- Black Falcon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's uncited, but it's definitely not uncitable. It's all factually accurate, it just needs the external sources added so that readers can verify that. Article just needs work, work that should be relatively easy to do. — coe l acan t a lk  — 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So what does it mean to be a "special entity" and a "political entity" with a "special position" which is "recognized" by "international treaty or agreement"? Dagnabit 01:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. For a list, it's a bit short. As essentially it summarizes other articles, I added main links to the relevant articles. These make it clear, why articles are listed. -- User:Docu
 * No, none of the articles you have linked to explain any of the claims made on the "list".
 * How do the areas listed differ from say Germany, the Panama Canal Zone, Gdańsk, Saar, the Free City of Danzig, the EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg, the United Arab Republic or the Indian reservations in the US? What about the Red Cross, which is mentioned several times in the Geneva Conventions? And the UN, it has its own Charter, isn't the United Nations special and recognized by a treaty?
 * Can you cite any authority on say international public law or political science which explains what a "special entity" is? Or is it new term coined by a Wikipedia editor?
 * There is no Wikipedia article on special entity or special entities to explain what the term means. And also none on special position. Dagnabit 15:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per Brad and Coelacan. The lack of entries for similar historical entities is a content problem that can and should be remedied without deletion.  Eluchil404 08:16, 14 February 2007 (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.