Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical powers

:{{la|Historical powers}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_powers Stats])

:({{Find sources|Historical powers}})

Indiscriminate list. A historical "power" is basically any state that once existed and does no longer. We have categories for this kind of thing. —Srnec (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep – No plausible match found in WP:DEL-REASON. Article satisfies WP:LISTPURP. Praemonitus (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete while the deletion rationale might be flawed, (a category for this is just as bad) this is a big chunk of poorly sourced original research on someone personal opinion what a "historical power" is, how the hell this survived since 2006 is beyond me. Secret ^account 02:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

::For the record, I had in mind :Category:Former countries and its subsidiaries. I'm sure there are others. I did not mean we need a :Category:Historical powers. —Srnec (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The criteria are hazy and confusing. If they could be improved, I might vote to keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Most of the entries appear to be regional powers that successfully expanded their borders. It could perhaps be constrained by requiring multiple generations of longevity and the use of hard power to expand its borders. Praemonitus (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Secret. There are many ways to describe power, and many opinions on what states had what power. An indiscriminate list does not help the reader. CMD (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 00:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete WP does need some articles along the lines of an Outline of History, which is what this one seems to be trying to do. I think it would be better to take a more inclusive approach, not segregating "powers" from other weaker nations and groups. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep absolutely not this article is vital it is a major historical article it is comparatively well sourced it has a very clear definition of inclusion just because some rogue deflationists aren't familiar with this important historical subject dos't mean that one of wikipedias most helpful articles should be deleted the definition of historical power has stood the test of time for centuries and is more than just an opinion the nations listed here are almost universally agreed upon as being historical powers and if this page is deleted it will be recreated again due to its vital importance Irishfrisian (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• keep most of the complaints leveled againsts this article seem unfounded and don't really seem to fit this article i personally view this article in high regard98.250.4.115 (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - the article satisfies every content guideline and the reasons for deletion are not well grounded on policy. Any discussion for cleanup or repurposing of the article should be held at its talk page. Diego (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• keep I can't see anything wrong with this article. It is the kind of thing that fits well in a encyclopedia. Also makes an interesting read. Mtpaley (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. 3/4 of the keeps directly above are WP:ILIKEIT. The fact is, there's no need for an article to compile and restate information that exists elsewhere. That is why we have categories, as the nominator said. And since this article is nothing but such a compilation, and has no notability in its own regard, it ought to be deleted. Ducknish (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

::...which is balanced with 4/5 of the deletes being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The term "historical powers" is regularly used in history books and academic papers referring to the kind of civilizations included here, so the claims for a lack of notability are moot. That some of the information is repeated in various articles has never been a reason for deletion, we even have the WP:SUMMARY guideline stating that doing so is a good idea. Diego (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

:::The term "historical power" is never used in any technical sense, except perhaps by Nietzsche in an entirely different sense than the one meant here. This article violates OR and SYNTH. Or can Diego cite one of these academic papers using the term in this way? The first result I get at JSTOR is a reference to "the cumulative historical power of leftist parties". Not, I think, what Diego means. Srnec (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

::::[http://indianstrategicknowledgeonline.com/web/Why%20great%20powers%20rise%20and%20fall.pdf This one] is a good example; you don't need to have a technical sense, since it's a common language term. It's better if you [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22historical+powers%22+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 search for] "historical powerS" instead. If you include adjectives like "[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22historical+powers%22+culture&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 culture]", "[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22historical+powers%22+civilization&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 civilization]", "[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22historical+powers%22+war&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 war]" or "[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22historical+powers%22+economy&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 economy]" you get to the ones that use the term with the current meaning. Diego (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

::::P.S. The linked paper describes historical powers this way: "In the centuries leading to 1500, several important power centers developed concurrently around the world, with no single power dominating. Ming China, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan and West-Central Europe were powers within their respective regions, and at the time it was by no means clear that West-Central Europe would eventually rise to the top. About 1500, however, one key difference developed: all of the power centers except Europe were led by a centralized, unifying authority that maintained a “uniformity of belief and practice…in commercial activities and weapons development.”" Diego (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would suggest that what matters here is not the name of the article - if the article name is not much used in relevant literature, it can be changed - but deciding whether the article has a viable topic. And it certainly does seem to have a topic - even if it would perhaps best be described as Historic states which at some time in their existence were too important for any of their neighbours to ignore (and historians often do refer to such states, at any period in history, as "powers"). Considering it that way, it's fairly obvious that the article is not indiscriminate in the way that the nominator was suggesting - there have been states of which this is true and states of which it is not true, and almost all the states discussed in the article are of the first type. However, we can still ask whether the topic, as treated in the article, is coherent - and I am some way from being properly convinced that it is. States can achieve that level of importance in a variety of different ways, and on a wide variety of different scales (Sparta, for instance, was that important for perhaps 200 years, but it is quite possible that nobody living more than 500 miles from Sparta ever heard of it during that period). And the article does very little to take these factors into account. There are, I think, good (or at least satisfactory) Wikipedia articles to be written on one or more topics closely related to this one - but I am not at all sure that they would look anything like this one. PWilkinson (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

:*I would have said that any and every state is a "power", but are not all equally powerful. This article is SYNTH and OR. And hopeless: it describes Qajar Persia as "high modern". Interestingly, the actual government of Persia was ignored by all of its neighbours during World War I. It was not even in your sense a "power". Srnec (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

:::If there are "articles to be written on one or more topics closely related to this one", the content of this one should be WP:PRESERVEd ("As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained"), not deleted. This is policy. Diego (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete -- The question of which former countries were (great) powers and which were not is leagely a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep All of these are referred to by historians as great powers. That is a proper term for it. Webster dictionary even has a definition for great power [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/great%20powers], saying its the same as "superpowers", that term used today. Listing what countries were considered great powers in their day, all having a significant effect on history, is very encyclopedic. Perhaps a rename to List of nations considered great powers throughout various times in history, or something shorter. Dream Focus 15:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

:*We are not debating the term "great power", but rather "historical power". The term "great power" is a modern invention, so there are no states "considered great powers in their day" before relatively recently. Srnec (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

::*We're here to the decide the fate of the article not its name. If the name causes confusion, it can be changed. How about List of nations which all modern day historians consider to be notable powers at some time in history to clarify things? Dream Focus 07:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I know that interesting is not a good reason to keep. Perhaps what this really needs is a move to a better name? Bearian (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2013 (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.