Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the Baltic states

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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the Baltic states

I am nominating the following 3 articles:

  1. Comparison of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  2. Comparison of the Benelux countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Comparison of the Nordic countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Comparison of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Partial follow-up to the deletion of Comparison of the Turkic states at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Unlike the "Turkic" page, these 3 articles are not arbitrary WP:CROSSCATs between language family and countries, and the terms "Baltic states", "Benelux" and "Nordic countries" are well-established. Other than that, however, they show the same issues, with arbitrarily chosen, SYNTHed data, of which the overall added encyclopedic value is not clear at all. A reader could also just open three tabs or windows in their browser putting the infoboxes of three countries next to each other; we don't need to do that for them. Nor do we have to assume it is more relevant or interesting for the reader to compare the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg than, say, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark; nor that Finland is more interesting as part of the Nordic countries and Estonia as part of the "Baltic" states, when Finland and Estonia arguably have more in common with each other than the other states they are usually associated with. (With the emphasis on arguably, because it is all quite subjective. It's not an opinion I necessarily share, but I've frequently heard and seen it expressed, with the argument that Estonian is not a Baltic language, but closely related to Finnish, which is true, but the significance of that is unclear). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely or. (t · c) buidhe 16:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these states have barely anything to do with each other. It’s like making a comparison of anglophone states or Romance states because ay they all speak roughly the same, were part of a large former empire and eat similar weird foods right? Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three articles are about sets of countries who have a lot to do with each other. That's not something these articles make up. The Baltic states, Benelux and the Nordic countries are well-established units. /Julle (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha well it's more than just that. You do see these countries generally cooperating more closely with each other in political, socio-economic, cultural, environmental etc. affairs than with other European countries around them. But I don't think that is significant enough to be creating and hosting this still rather randomly generated "comparison" articles. That's fun stuff for a blog or tabloid as a page-filler, but everyone here seems to agree it's quite redundant and arbitrary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Yeah what Julle says. Funnily enough, he's from Sweden and I'm from the Netherlands, we both recognise these sets of countries as well-established units, but we also both agree these 'comparison' articles should be deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could say anglophone countries cooperate more than other regional states, since most of them are in the Commonwealth of Nations and the US is close allies with both the UK and Canada. But I don’t think there’s a huge amount to “compare” between, I dunno, South Africa and New Zealand. Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus Now that you mention it, shouldn't we also delete the section Anglosphere#Comparing core Anglosphere, and the table in Anglosphere#Core Anglosphere? Because that's EXACTLY what they are doing. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s just as arbitrary Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus Cool, thanks for helping me find them! I'll remove both tables if this nom results is the overwhelming Delete that is looming. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first of these would probably neatly fall within the scope of a follow-up AfD. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common source for all / most of these cruft sections: User:128.117.10.25, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6#Country comparison sections. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In many instances these tables are an affront to "summary style", and the duplication of basic country statistics to such articles virtually guarantee they'll be out of date. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If they mention dates at all, the basic country statistics will be outdated eventually. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Most of WP content is going to be outdated. This is a reason for updating pages (and yes, providing dates and references), not deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are regularly updated, demographics articles are regularly updated, but those comparison articles/sections? Why bother? Unless we're making some sort of Template:Excerpt construction, so that the contents of comparison tables will always synchronised and up to date, I really don't think it's worth the trouble. And even if we do, we are admitting we are duplicating contents anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these pages are legitimate Wikipedia:Lists supplementing main pages on the corresponding subjects. Something can be unsourced on a lot of pages, but this is not a reason to automatically delete them. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying all articles I'm mentioning here should necessarily be deleted. I'm just identifying lots of similar issues across articles, and especially the country comparison sections should probably just be removed from the international relations articles that should otherwise be kept intact. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I think the arguments to delete these pages and remove such content from all main pages are strange. Consider something like page Proteases. Providing a table with comparison of different proteases on such page would be great. Same is here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found out this morning that an RfC about removing them altogether had been initiated on 11 June (before, and apparently completely independent of, my AfD here): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It turns out that this saga already started in 2018, and we've still not established a consensus about what to do with such country comparison sections across English Wikipedia. For my part, I've made a passionate argument to get rid of them once and for all, based on an elaborate documentation of precedents and background discussions that I had mostly already gathered here. Never knew it could instantly be reused for an RfC about the same topic! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with making such comparisons, but they should be made in proper sections and placed to certain context like Nordic_countries#Geography. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As of note, some comparison info is already provided on pages Benelux, Nordic countries, and Baltic states. What exactly needs to be compared is of course debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables suggests that the fact that What exactly needs to be compared is of course debatable is exactly the problem. It's all random, arguable, contestable, debatable, and arbitrary. Legitimate comparisons can of course be made, like Comparison of American and British English. But for countries / international relations, I see a consensus emerging at the RfC that they have no discernable added encyclopedic value, and should be deleted / removed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unjustified and inherently unjustifiable WP:SPINOFFs. Our articles present, analyze and contrast, without rubbing in what FUNCTIONS sentences and sections fulfill so not to insult the intelligence of the reader. As articles develop, headers may be added based on subject matter, better identifying subjects within (paragraphs also need to be written around ideas) and, eventually, spinoffs or spinouts may be justified. Everything along delimitations of content and NOT by functions! These articles, however, are written around functionality (yikes!). Much more went wrong. These are NOT lists so they must be judged by the prose. However, the prose is almost entirely to entirely (for the Benelux) missing in action. So there is no there there. There is WP:OR in two articles, where parts of North America are included into regions in Europe. Finally there is a misnomer of geography. This is an all-WP problem and well-beyond. The Benelux, Nordic countries, and Baltic states ARE geographies so identifying only some physical characteristics as "geography" spits in the face of human geography. On the bright side, I did not identify SYNTH. No objection to copying some of these tables to the main articles, into the appropriate sections. gidonb (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete theoretically, some version of these articles might be salvageable. What we have are a few arbitrary data tables, all of which would be better presented in some other format. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SYNTH. So Latvia has more water than Lithuania, what is the significance of that? Or that the 3 countries have different international calling codes. The most relevant information can be included in Benelux, Nordic countries, and Baltic states, but "comparison" articles are not necessary. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if Lithuania ever finds itself faced with a water shortage, it can borrow some from Latvia! This is why international relations between these two countries are very, very important.[Joke] Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists can be in table form and can even be broken up by headers, such as here, but it does not apply to these articles. These articles are NOT lists but, rather, proseless prose or plainly travesties. I ENCOURAGE everyone to follow the link you supplied and the one I supplied to understand what a sortable or tabled list looks like. It's easy to see how these are different from the AfDd articles! gidonb (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, these are not good as standalone pages. Some info is useful, but it is either already included to other pages or should be included differently. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I explained above in some detail why comparisons should not be spinoffs. It accumulates information by function, instead of subject matter topic which is the correct way to spin off. There are more issues with these articles, also listed in my opinion above. gidonb (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_the_Baltic_states