Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Largest empires

Welcome to wikipedia. Could you explain exactly what the POV is ? Megapixie 05:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have listed the AfD subst tag on the page - this discussion is the second nomination and should be indicated as such. SM247^{My Talk} 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Verification and substantial work was not carried out since last nominated, so throw it in the bin until somebody can revive it properly. SM247^{My Talk} 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: these claims are false. The diff from the end of the last nomination to the start of this one is here. How can you say that "no" verification has been carried out, when in fact the only references in the article were added since the last nomination? How can you say that no "substantial work" has been carried out, when in fact the article was expanded to twenty times its previous size since the last nomination? Please verify your facts before making misleading claims. — Haeleth Talk 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete questionable source -- MrDolomite 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article has NOT been abandoned - see the edit history. It does state sources - however they are not good sources - we should leave the {{verify}} tag in place. At least one other article cites the webpage in question Mongol Empire, and the numbers in the linked empire articles which do not cite the webpage appear to match up, suggesting (though not proving) the numbers are taken from a good print source. I don't see how this can be POV - can someone enlighten me/explain ? Sure it needs some work (which appears to be ongoing) - but does it really need to be deleted ? Megapixie 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Source is questionable and clearly does not have a NPOV. Author abandoned article and article kills it self.(Celto 05:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia. Would you care to explain what the POV in this article actually is ? Megapixie 05:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, like how the main source is questioned openly to be wrong.POV stands for Point of View.(Celto 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think you are confusing

WP:Verify. An inaccurate source doesn't make it POV - remember wikipedia is about verifability not truth. I agree that the source isn't a good one - but I believe good ones could be found. Megapixie 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment 1 1st Afd ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2 Is it coincidence that we have three four editors with slight edit histories that all use the same manner of signing off? ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found this to be interesting, surely some way can be found to verify all of the information, which looks about right to me (me being not an historian, though).

////

An article "being interesting", is not a valid reason to keep it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Pacific PanDeist.--Tdxiang 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, also per Pacific PanDeist. HumbleGod 06:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve and verify (some current countries are larger than the smallest empire mentioned, thus making e.g. the Belgian "empire" (i.e. Belgium + Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi) fit for inclusion).
  Fram 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This article can be improved. It will need a lot of verification, but the fact that there is contention over the sources (read the discussion page) as opposed to a lack of sources shows that it simply needs more work (rather than deletion). Wiki-Ed 09:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is just the sort of thing that I like to use wikipedia for. MLA 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and increase sourcings and it'll be a good little article. ShaunES 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as original research, listcruft. also no context. yes, it may be interesting or useful, but it's not encyclopedic. Maybe the Guinness Book of World Records will take it. Tychocat 10:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would it be better if sources like this one were used?
    Fram 11:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment No. None of my objections have to do with sourcing. This list could be the most meticulously documented and verified list ever listed, and it would still be a list that exists only for the sake of being a list. I am considering an article to list all the letters in the common english alphabet - each letter is surely notable, interesting, and usable, and therefore, the list must be worthy of inclusion...? I realize irony often doesn't translate in print, please so note. Tychocat 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Not that it is of major importance, but at least one of your objections does have to do with sourcing. If you complain about OR, then you are complaining because no sources are given. As for your other objections, well, let's agree to disagree...
      Fram 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Comment Tychocat - what you write is doubly ironic - check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Latin_letters . Well done for defeating your own argument! Gsd2000 11:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sputter! True, apparently nothing is too trivial, or original research, to be denied WP status. Tychocat 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and improve references and accuracy. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and improve references and accuracy.--Kev62nesl 11:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This has been pretty much disputed since it's last nomination in January. If the source is not credible, the article should go. We can't keep that verify tag on there indefinitely. I'd be happy if a new article was written using
  Fram's suggested source. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, The article can be substantiated, and would be a fine article if sourced. Tdslappy
• Delete for the source issue. If one found an credible source to cite they can always recreate an article using that source. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, Are you kidding me this article does not have a NPOV and even states "The calculation of the land area of a particular empire is controversial;" but then again he goes against his main source and puts the land area anyway as if it 100 precent certain. (Forhonor 15:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX[reply]
• Keep, first user above does not understand what "POV" means - (s)he claimed that the statement 'the British Empire was the world's most extensive empire' constitutes POV. Gsd2000 15:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, User claims that the whole article has a POV which is true it openly goes against its Main source!
• Delete, Article clearly has a POV, by questioning its main source! (XGustaX 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX[reply]
• Comment, FR-Altas, Celto and Forhonor are clearly sockpuppets of IIIV, the original poster. Gsd2000 16:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2, actually - looking at the edit histories, I have reason to believe all four above are sock-puppets of XGustaX. Gsd2000 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. For a change this is a list of the kind that actually belongs in Wikipedia, so the article's active editors should probably be given a chance to clean it up. It appears they have not realised so far that
  WP:V might lead to an article this poorly cited being deleted. Perhaps this nomination will be the spur they need to get some solid references in there. Let's revisit this in a few months; if it's still not adequately verifiable by then, it should of course be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. I still fail to see why this article should be deleted. And which part of the article is POV? Perhaps the comments at the beginning, but the actual lists themselves have very little POV in them. Why should we start from scratch if all we need is to improve the sources.
  Fram has already found us a very good source. All we need to do is implement it into the article. It seems a bit extreme to delete the entire article when all it needs is a little improvement. Jagged 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. I've now added that source in the article, and numerous figures from it. This should make the article much more reliable overall, though a few of the figures will still need some more work. Jagged 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article needs a clean-up but it has potential. -- Alias Flood 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the topic is a valid one - and the list is broken out into segments that would seem to eliminate definitional confusion. I don't think there's significant enough problems with the content to warrant a deletion to restart the list. Work it out on the talk page. Kuru ^talk 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Alias Flood. Kariià¦Deranged Ramblings 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has potential to be a good group of lists.
  GRBerry 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]