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. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries that border only one other country[edit]

List of countries that border only one other country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic certainly don't feel encyclopedic. This kind of list would never show up in any paper book about nations of the world or other factual work. An article about countries with ZERO borders would maybe-probably-not-but-maybe be of scholarly interest, but nothing would beat an article such as List of countries by number of bordering countries - if anyone so desperately must know these things. This article is simply "hey look what I figured out" in my eyes and contains zero academic value. I say delete and then maybe create this one as a replacement if anyone believe that it is wikirelevant. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 16:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this gets mentioned on the Wikipedia Facebook page as a fun article to check out (meaning that, you know, PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF WIKIPEDIA want to highlight as something noteworthy enough that they POSTED IT TO THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE), and almost IMMEDIATELY gets flagged for potential deletion. Typical freakin' Wikipedia for you. Keep and I'm so over this impulsive behavior from zealous editors. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia probably shouldn't be promoting articles with 0 sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going, Jimmy Wales??? I'd assume from that cocky, self-congratulating tone that could only be you, since you appear to speak so definitively about what Wikipedia can and cannot do! Fireflyfanboy (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Note: the behavior of the user that made the comment above mine doesn't seem exactly right...) Drow (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding so much to the conversation! The implication by not saying anything except "delete" and calling me out for disobeying one of your bureaucratic rules is that you're literally saying "delete" out of spite! That's fun!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please! Just because the admin of the facebook page (which might be anyone for all we know, a shoddy intern at wikimedia communications) likes this article, that doesn't mean it is good. This only means that someone thought "hey, look at this crazy piece of facts I found on wikipedia LOLZ". Just because facebook brought it to my attention don't make my arguments less valid. Everyone calm down and start discussing facts please!! I rest my case: delete. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing buddy. Please stop playing the victim and holding on to your role as some kind of IAR-police. Please think about what IAR doesn't mean before you call us out for being blind rule fools. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to projecting a LOT ("a shoddy intern at wikimedia communications... thought "hey, look at this crazy piece of facts I found on wikipedia LOLZ") based on very little evidence. To me, that runs completely contrary to the ideals of Wikipedia. People should be held accountable for their biases. No listing off inane bureaucratic rules excuses that. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying it COULD be so, you don't either have any evidence for your assumption that "WP Facebook page is run by deadly serious people who only share the very best pages". Speaking of which, you have not either come with any evidence for your "keep" other than name-calling and pointing out to other editors that their arguments are invalid because you dislike them. So let's both stop this nonsense and do this like adults:
Fireflyfanboy, do you have any factual and objective arguments that the article is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? And can you understand why I think that it is not? Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 15:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionist, pure and simple. The article is here, it's accurate, it doesn't do anything wrong (except any arbitrary broken rule you want to throw at it, which makes the case for improvement more than deletion). Let's talk about improving, or even modifying, rather than deleting outright. This should have been a topic for the talk page. But discussions like these, where we are talking about deleting a innocuous article, is a big reason why some people hate this website and the associated bureaucracy. Moreover, while you are so quick to dismiss the Facebook post "oh, it was on Facebook, but it's probably an intern that posted it so let's delete this puppy," to me, you can construe it any way you want, but basically, SOMEONE at the higher ups believes this article is worthy enough of recognition. You can try to project whatever you want or dismiss it all you want, but them's the facts. That, to me, tells me that deletion is foolhardy at best and obstructionist at worst. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, PLEASE stop bringing up Facebook. How is the method through which I found this article relevant? Does that gives it some kind of immunity, and me some kind of evil-label? Second of all, "doesn't do anything wrong" is a completely substance-less argument. The reason that I nominated deletion was that I think it is an arbitrary list with very limited academic use. Consider WP:NOTCATALOG which mentions "Simple listings", and WP:INDISCRIMINATE aka WP:NOTSTATSBOOK which deals with "unexplained statistics". This article, and especially its stated purpose, feels like an output from WolframAlpha and not something you would find listed in - for instance - the appendix of a paper encyclopedia of geography. I agree with your point about improving however; I believe we should change the article and recreate it titled List of countries by number of bordering countries. If this gets deleted, I will personally write that article. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything more. You are the equivalent of a political radical: nit-picking, obsessive and spouting out BS justification through BS rules and regulations you've memorized. You think all this time you've spent memorizing various talking and policy points makes you better than me, just like every other editor like you that I've encountered. But honestly, I think people like you are the reason why Wikipedia can be such a pain in the ass, and also the reason more people don't edit for this website. And if this article is deleted, it serves as nothing more than a testament to all of that.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, right now you are doing nothing but namecalling. And why are you talking as if remembering policies and guidelines are a bad thing? I consider this conversation over, Fireflyfanboy, and I won't reply to your comments anymore. If you want to keep shouting insults at me, please do it on my own talk page. Let this page be for people actually discussing deletion. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 23:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add sources. A fine subject for an article that I'm sure people are interested in, but it does need improvement. - SimonP (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SimonP. There should also be an article about countries with zero borders, I may create one myself if this article is not deleted Mparrault (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand to include descriptions of the kinds of single-border relationship involved. There are generally three possibilities. The first is a split island like Haiti/Dominican Republic or Ireland/United Kingdom; the second is the peninsular relationship, where the first country borders the second and is otherwise surrounded by sea, while the second borders other countries, like Portugal/Spain, Denmark/Germany, and Canada/United States; the third is the circumstance where the first country is a small country that is landlocked and completely surrounded by the second, larger country, such as The Vatican/Italy and Lesotho/South Africa. This should all be explained and the type of relationship should be identified for each country listed. bd2412 T 01:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source it. Needs improving not deleting. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, i was surprised that an article thats been around since 2004 remains unreferenced (actually im not that surprised, this is wikipedia after all), although this looks likely to be kept through consensus, i have some comments/questions that i hope will be answered by the keepers, this appears to be a case of original research as there are no references cited, just wondering why none of the keepers above have referred to any books/articles about this subject? the lead states "with only land borders being counted.", why? whats wrong with counting sea/water boundaries?, none of the "keepers" above have stated that this article meets WP:NLIST nor WP:GNG or have backed their "keep" with references, at the moment it looks like a case of WP:ILIKEIT. (i admit this is quite interesting, oops another argument not to use.:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, it could be argued that this sort of information is what wikipedia as a gazetteer should contain...but im also concerned about the arbitrary nature of the inclusion criteria ie. why not two or three or four boundaries? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Response: Yes, maybe there is some academic interest in this article. However, as people have already stated, the list feels very arbitrary in its inclusion criterion and leaves one wondering "tsk, okaaay?" like one don't understand why this is an important step towards all-encompassing knowledge for humanity. So I say delete and create this instead. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Correlates of War Project has a data set that mostly agrees with the list in this article. I've added it as a reference.Mparrault (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Mparrault has already (somehow) noticed, I have started a replacement article at Draft:List of countries by bordering countries. If we get this complete, this article becomes completely obsolete - all the more reason to delete. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 23:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mparrault: There is already List of countries and territories by land borders, to which the draft appears to be redundant. I do not consider that to obviate the utility of having List of countries that border only one other country as a subtopic. bd2412 T 00:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • BD2412, thanks for pointing out List of countries and territories by land borders. I agree that the current article still adds detail that isn't in List of countries and territories by land borders. By the way, I think it is possible, at least in principle, for a country to have multiple types of single-border relationships, if it has multiple parts. For instance, consider Indonesia's border with the rest of the world. On New Guinea, it has a split island relationship, while on Borneo, it has a peninsular relationship. This problem doesn't occur for any of the current single-border countries, but it easily could. Mparrault (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, there already was one?? Well, as every search clearly states, consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered, I guess I'm guilty as charged.
Back on topic however, I now suggest delete and merge to here for the article in question. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme clarify since I didn't made a point: List of countries that border only one other country is a redundant list since the exact same information are available at List of countries and territories by land borders. You just have to sort the table descending. If it contains any information that the other one does not, we should simply copypaste it and then delete it. I don't think a subtopic about "1 border" is notable enough when the general list covers "n borders". Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 09:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for this article has academic interest and significance. It redirects from landlocked country article on wiki. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Summary Thanks to User:Coffee for relisting. I really wasted some bandwidth here by going in a insult war with someone else, and then trying to create an article that already exists. So let's sum up my opinions so far:
  I think this list is too arbitrary, it makes one wonder if we are going to write separate articles listing "countries with X borders. And, since we already have an article called List of countries and territories by land borders, this one feels redundant. Policies applicable include WP:NOTCATALOG, which mentions "simple listings", and WP:INDISCRIMINATE aka WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, which deals with "unexplained statistics". As of yet, I can't see any editors coming here to refute these two points, and thus no consensus have been formed. So my case is still either delete or merge into here and turn into redirect here. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 09:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gaioa: Please only have one bold-faced !vote in the discussion. As it stands, it appears that you are trying to vote four times. bd2412 T 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seeing as how it's been improved and sourced. MitchG74 01:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.