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. WP:SNOW here even though discussion has not run 7 days. Without prejudice to any RM if that is a concern. (non-admin closure)Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely original research. There is no reference for the "criteria for inclusion". ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 14:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no source listing which Wikipedia articles have references. That sort of thing is verifiable only through our own dogged efforts. CMD (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article's criteria is well described and content and reasons for inclusion or exclusion are well sourced. I see no facts here I would challenge as original research or of questionable verifiability, and the nomination is quite poorly thought out for a proposal to delete a page with 14 talk page archives and hundreds of editors establishing the article's content. Reywas92Talk 15:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "inclusion criteria" remains ambiguous, in my opinion. States with near universal recognition are included on the list which has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years. There is an on-going talk page discussion about this which confirms that the "inclusion criteria" (which may also violate WP:PROPORTION) is still a concern for many. Either the criteria gets a much needed update or this issue will become a never-ending saga. Inclined to support a soft delete but I'm hopeful this nomination will actually (and finally) help refine/update the "inclusion criteria". If that happens, then inclined to support a strong keep. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be some edit warring and arguments on the talk page about certain things being included. There are 110 references in the article. This is an encyclopedic topic. No valid reason given for deletion. DreamFocus 18:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be an active edit war on List of states with limited recognition. Last major edit was 11 days ago. As for the talk page, there is an on-going conversation regarding this topic and it seems pretty civil to me. Archives908 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Victory to the UAW (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evident OR - the criteria can be sourced per CMD and the article as a whole is well-supported. I'd argue that Archives908's comment above is trying to use the deletion process as a means of pressuring editors to take the user's position in a content dispute, which is not what it is for. I would note, however, that a brief review of the talk page archives would demonstrate that the dispute is not anything like as entrenched or repetitious as the comment would imply. Kahastoktalk 18:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a loaded assumption and not at all appreciated. Simply made a comment to alert others that there is an active talk page discussion about this topic, which may be of interest. Archives908 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what it is, then it's inappropriate campaigning because it's not a neutral description of the question. Kahastoktalk 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. As you can see, I did not cast a vote to keep or delete the article and have remained pretty neutral. I see the merits in the nom but also for a keep. My comment is focused on the main topic of this nom- which is the "criteria for inclusion". Please don't twist my intentions. Thanks! Archives908 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come off it. Your comment is almost entirely about how the inclusion of the likes of China and Israel has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years and will become a never-ending saga unless you get your way, to the point where you argue for a soft delete if you don't get your way and a strong keep if you do.
Turns out, somebody here actually looked through the talk page archive, at least for the last 11 years. Turns out, the point has been raised precisely twice in that entire period, both in 2022. Turns out, this supposedly-serious never-ending saga, this major concern for many editors for many years, did not result in so much as a single discussion for the entire period from at least March 2011 to May 2022. In that context, I see no reason not to call bullshit. Kahastoktalk 23:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about rules of inclusion, options for rename and scoping, what to include, terminology and so forth (non-country specific threads) and then I skipped a few that in essence are about the way the list is compiled.
2006 "Unrecognized countries or secessionist teritories?"
2006 "Criteria for inclusion in this list" / "categories"
2007 "Partially unrecognised states"
2007 "suggestion"
2007 "Section merging / confusion"
2007 "Five tiny proposals for titles of sections and subsections"
2008 "partially recognized"?
2008 "Recognised/unrecoginsed by UN Security Council states"
2008 "Terms of reference"
2008 "Rename proposal: to List of partially recognised sovereignty"
2009 "Proposal for new classification of states"
2009 "Substantial recognition status"
2009 "De Facto States"
2009 "More states?"
2009 "UN member states, not recognized by at least one other state"
2011 "Governments with limited recognition versus states with limited recognition"
2012 "Recognized by at least one/ not recognized by at least one"
2012 "People here are thinking UN is some sort of important atlas?"
2014 "RFC: Propose use of terminologies "non-UN members""
2014 "Requested move 07 December 2014"
2018 "Can absence of any recognition be considered as "limited recognition"?"
2020 "Inclusion criteria - Academic sources"
2021 "RfC on the inclusion of DNR and LNR in the list of states with limited recognition"
2022 "Criteria of inclusion"
2022 "Let's not include states with close to universal recognition as having "limited recognition""
2022 "Limited vs. partial recognition" Labrang (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're saying is this. You are suggesting that the fact that we had an RFC in 2021 on the topic of whether Donetsk and Luhansk met the current inclusion criteria at that time is evidence of the claim States with near universal recognition are included on the list which has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years. Bearing in mind that neither Donetsk nor Luhansk had ever been recognised by any UN member state at that time.
Frankly, if anything this proves my point. Most of that list is in the same territory. You can see that from the titles - note no links as a rule. I haven't checked the pre-2011 cases, but there is no evidence from the talk page history of what is claimed to be an serious ongoing long-term dispute. Kahastoktalk 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to List of de facto states because it is much more common name than the current descriptive title. --Ibuman (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources for the "criteria for inclusion" if you wan to keep it. Who defined it? In which literature (books or journals)? Otherwise this article is completely original research. ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why use the recognition of UN-Member States to define this concept, rather than the recognition of any de facto State? The United States is not recognized by South Ossetia and Transnistria. Is the United States a "state with limited recognition"?——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 23:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that point. I was going to raise that. That argument would make this list a so called "coathanger". Gact is, we already look through the lens of UN-members when considering whether a country is ("universally") recognized. We do not consider a (UN) country not-universally recognized if it is not recognized by a non-UN-member. Such as the example above (or pick another one). Logical, because if we do this list would explode. The entire distinction of "(non) universal" recognition is construed around UN members recognizing states. Hence it is logical to use that as a distinct factor. Labrang (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source please that the United States is not recognised by Transnistria. CMD (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they have no diplomatic relations ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 02:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a lack of recognition. CMD (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are any problems here they can be fixed with editing. If a better name exists then that can be discussed and the article moved. Clearly there is a legitimate topic here and no valid reason to delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the criteria for inclusion seem simple to me, to be basically: "the state either satisfies the declarative theory or sensibly satisfies the constitutive theory". The limitation on the constitutive theory is there just to ensure we don't get silly and include Sealand or Molossia. Somaliland is a bit of a wrinkle, but the wrinkle in itself doesn't justify deletion. Sceptre (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would rename the section "List criteria" to avoid future confusion. There isn't anything there that can't be discussed on the talkpage if the scope is to be widened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please provide the sources as well. ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 00:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reliable sources discuss and compare/contrast "states with limited recognition". Where does the notion that we need to cite sources or reference for inclusion criteria of standalone lists come from? Reliable sources might not even use the same exact definition with one another of what qualifies as a "state with limited recognition". StellarHalo (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per valid arguments given above (mainly those of Reywas92, Sceptre, and StellarHalo). Encyclopedic topic with sourcing sufficient to pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the concept is very well established in countless very reliable sources. It is not original research in any meaningful way to say that states that have limited recognition exists. Insofar as such states exist, a list of them is perfectly reasonable. --Jayron32 13:15, 3 November 2022 (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.