Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential Superpowers—India

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 of the debate was no consensus, but see notes below. bainer (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research with no references, topic is non-encyclopedic, POV. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would just like to say this to the users of wikipedia. The main reason for deleting these articles are that they do not provide references. Well, now the Indian article has got 5 references and I have created a section on it's Talk Page outlining the sections we need to find references to. Hopefully, this article will no longer have any issues by the end of this week.Nobleeagle 09:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - Fellow Wikipedians, I believe that this deletion vote could be either the best or worst thing that has happened to these articles in a long time. If they are deleted, that's the worst thing that has happened. But if you were to check the Potential Superpowers - India article now, you would realize that there are over 120 references, that's a heap of work, that's the best thing that could happen to this article. So please consider the work done before voting. Nobleeagle 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the second two to this nomination. I think we should make a decision for all three of these articles together. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Potential Superpowers - Japan. It's also unreferenced and original research. Heilme 08:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added Potential Superpowers - Russia and Potential Superpowers - Brazil. There are more Potential Superpowers pages so it seems. Let the discussion be complete. Heilme 08:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Potential superpowers article which was apparently created as well. It seems like all the delete and keep votes so far apply to that as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this is working. First of all, the people that have edited Superpower and Major powers agree that Russia, Japan and Brazil are NOT Potential Superpowers. They are not listed as potential superpowers and should not even have such a page. But seeing as they do have such a page, we need to create a seperate Articles for Deletion section when it comes to Russia, Brazil and Japan, as most people with a knowledge of the subject would agree that they are not potential superpowers anyway.Nobleeagle 08:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the addition of the others, as they are equivalent from a policy point of view. It seems at Talk:Superpower that it was realized in January that none of these articles had any verification. Instead of improving the articles, half of them were chosen to be orphaned and forgotten; and even that decision drew on no outside sources. Melchoir 09:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that their articles for deletion section should be seperate from India, China and the E.U., because this changes my opinion and I'm sure many users will now have to go and change their views so that they say Keep this and Delete that...Nobleeagle 09:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of your opinion does it change? Melchoir 09:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has long been agreed on the Superpower discussion that Brazil, Russia and Japan are not Potential Superpowers. Therefore, there is an extra reason to delete those three, because they shouldn't be there, they are Major Powers (and in Brazil's case, are barely Major Powers). But everyone must agree that India, China and the E.U. are Potential Superpowers, so therefore, atleast these articles are not misleading in their facts.Nobleeagle 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to consider articles, not countries. As a reader, why should I believe that three of the articles are misleading me, but the other three aren't? Melchoir 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you fail to understand my point of view. There was much debate on this matter and eventually the long-term editors of Superpower decided that Russia/Japan and Especially Brazil were definitely not Potential Superpowers. Wikipedia is here to present as much fact as it can to its readers and it is fact that India, China and the E.U. presently look like they will quickly rise to heights that Russia, Japan and Brazil will not rise to. Which (trying to draw it back to the topic) means that 3 should be deleted and 3 should be kept. But we're going off-topic, so I'll just stop this discussion in saying that we should have seperate deletion pages and since no-one has voted on Russia, Brazil and Japan yet, it is still not too late.Nobleeagle 09:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do understand your point of view. You seem to expect the reader to trust your judgement, or the judgement of whoever hangs out on some talk page. This is not our policy. Melchoir 10:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are not to be persuaded, but I have had my say, all I ask you is to see how much media hype there is about Brazil being the next superpower? Then compare it to India...Nobleeagle 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely out of order. You can't add articles to this when the "voting" has been going on this long. All these articles should be listed separately. -- JJay 09:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, I suggest we restart voting, since much has happened within this period of voting being opened. 1 Section for Russia, Japan and Brazil, one section for E.U., India and China.Nobleeagle 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the process has been bungled, and JJay's proposal to split sounds best, but I think it might be too late to do it without pissing someone off. It's not the end of the world if this AfD closes with no consensus; if necessary, we can revisit the individual articles in future months. Melchoir 10:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this seems to be a very well thought out article that seems relevant unless content is duplicated elsewhere -- Tawker 05:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it seems well thought out is becuase its original research. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although it has inherently crystalballish title, it's well done and there are many like it at Superpower#Potential Superpowers. Possibly move these to something like "Power factors of ____". Sandstein 05:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reconsidered after reading the arguments below: Delete all as crystal ball original research after merging what's usable to the country articles. Sandstein 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a bit POV, but most of it is very well written. It would be better if the article changed its tone from India will become a Superpower to more of a India may become a superpower with these possible reasons. Maybe more should be added on the "Points against the rise of an Indian superpower. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 05:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References are needed badly. Otherwise controversies can arise from a topic like this. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 06:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you realise that by suggesting "India may become a superpower with these possible reasons" as a title you're actually arguing for deletion? - brenneman^{T}{L} 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I am not, the current title is suitable Potential Superpowers- India. Not future Superpowers. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I mean is that you're acknowledging that this is original research with that suggested title change.
          brenneman^{T}{L} 08:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this suggestion is indicative of the overal problem of these sets of articles. The solution to original research has become more original research which points in the other direction. This is an exceptional poor analysis anyway. It takes a lot of basic facts and from them extrapolates this geopolitical conclusion which is increasingly meaningless. Wikipedia should be a place that contains those facts, but it doesn't need to present them in a way that suggests a country will or will not become a superpower. Thus, no title change can solve this problem. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the talk page of the article. There are glaring inconsistencies, POVs raised by editors/readers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, these articles seem to attract that sort of POV. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 06:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep Article has been there for many months, is very well thought out, has heaps of info for someone that doesn't know about India's rise to become a superpower and is also linked to many other articles including Superpower and Major powers etc. Nobleeagle 06:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I smell jealousy... The article does need improvement, but is not a candidate for deletion. --die Baumfabrik 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jealousy? The nominator is an active Indian wikipedian :) --Gurubrahma 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should we keep these articles? An encyclopedia is not a crystal ball. We all like to boast about the achievements of our native countries but this is not the place. --Spartian 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, (and add references). I have added the {{unreferenced}} tag to this page to note that it is in need of references. --Viridian {Talk} 07:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those references will almost certainly confirm these individual facts but not their use as factors for the rise of India (or any of these countries) as a superpower. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All salvagable matter covered by India. The remainder of this article is POV, crystal ball and unreferenced. What next? Potential Superpowers-Pakistan or Potential Superpowers-Israel? --Gurubrahma 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As it stands this is textbook original research. The fact that it doesn't cite a single source should raise some alarm bells, but citing sources for the various facts in the article won't solve the problem of the synthesis of those facts. What we have here is a personal essay, not an article. I'd note that the Superpower article also has not even one reference. - brenneman^{T}{L} 07:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete India, Improve E.U., Keep China - I've been reading this article for a while, and I notice more and more that the data that is given in this article (to support the notion of India's rise) is more like a predicted extension of current events. That's right, prediction. Therefore, since it's more like crystal-balling, it is POV, and not reference is mentioned. And even worse, in my opinion, what they call "power points" to support India's rise is not even a power point at all. They are all weak arguments. Okeydokey 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although the article is currently in very poor shape, it cannot be deleted unless you also delete Potential Superpowers—China and Potential Superpowers - European Union. Kevlar67 08:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See below. Kevlar67 11:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's simply untrue. If I get really busy tonight and write an article about all of the four hundred dioramas I've contructed from pasta, there is clearly no requirement that Wikipedia either keep them all or delete them all at once. Each AfD looks at the merits of the article in question and relevent polcies and guidelines, with some head nod to conventions established in other AfDs. The mere existance of other articles doesn't figure in. - brenneman^{T}{L} 08:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem solved--this is a very comprehensive nomination. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reference cited at all. At least the Potential Superpowers - China (so Keep China) page has references and an external link of recent article supporting the argument. The European Union page I think is needing references too (so can improve or delete as well). The India page lacks article at all. This is more like original research (writing school essay) rather than stating facts already established. Sarangburung 07:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've gone back and forth on whether to nominate this whole series of articles. I hate the title for one. I'll add the other articles to this nomiantion if the nominator doesn't object. No vote. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: these articles are mostly unreferenced and are not encyclopedic. --jrleighton 09:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete India. If the AfD consolidation stands, delete E.U. and keep China, but delete every bullet point without a citation. I don't think the topics are inherently POV, and I am sure these topics can be found in reliable sources, including the kind of historical synthesis that could avoid original research. But the current articles cannot be allowed to stay. Let them grow back when someone's willing to open a book. Melchoir 09:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Superpower needs a good weeding. Melchoir 09:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. --Terence Ong 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The first article is nothing but a giant ball of uncited claims and original analysis about india. It needs a serious going over to add references to justify its assertions. Delete unless severely rewritten. Night Gyr 11:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most of the delete voters stated that it is unreferenced, which is obviously true. However, that should not be a reason for deletion. There are articles written much worse that this but still exist because of Cleanup, Wikify, NPOV and other templates. This article is notable enough to stay and deserves to be improved upon and references should be added. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 11:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I and many others have worked our socks off on these articles, I don't want to have worked on something in vain only for someone to come along and VfD on a very dodgy basis. If it's not cited, then put it up for improvement, there is no reason whatsoever to delete such important articles. Jombo 11:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Jombo and DaGizza: Unreferenced articles should be referenced, and original research articles should be deleted. These articles do not display any evidence, in the form of references, that they are anything other than novel narrative or historical interpretations. As such, even if every bullet point were verified, the articles would still constitute original research. The China article is just barely an exception, because it links to a story that has both the words "China" and "superpower" in the title. Even there, the source does not support the article, and its mere presence doesn't vindicate the original research going on. If any of these articles is deleted, your work will not have been in vain; it will have served as an example of the kinds of research we don't do. Melchoir 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything that can be salvaged into India, China, and European Union. Failing that, delete. --Descendall 13:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep if it can be shown that it is not original research (some references which says that India, China and EU are the potential superpowers).--Raghu 13:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (for now) until we decide the larger issue of whether this type of geopolitical analysis is "original research" or encyclopedic. Kevlar67 13:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments apply to India, China, and EU only. Delete Japan, Russia, and Brazil since they have seperate sections on major power (I believe?). If that is unfeasible, then Delete all. Kevlar67 11:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research, and looks like a fork of India, China and European Union. Or possibly a series of forks of Superpower. Either way, potential superpower is problematic. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Most of the stuff in these article is original research, POV and speculative. It is more like an article one sees in a newspaper not in an encyclopedia!! It would be better option to merge certain sections of these articles with Superpower, Major power and Potential Superpowers. If these articles are kept, the very meaning of an encyclopedia would be at sake. --Spartian 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Move. These articles are written and titled as "subarticles" of superpower, which isn't really appropriate. Discussions on why these have been referred to as "potential superpowers" could be discussed at superpower or possibly potential superpowers (this one needs to lose the "subarticle" notice, too, or if there really is enough for in depth analysis of each one (which I doubt without a lot fo crystal ball/OR), names like "India as a potential superpower" would be better. JPD (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Otherwise delete as crystal ball/speculation. — RJH 17:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what can be; then delete or we'll have Potential Superpowers-Kurdistan and the debate on that will be lively. Carlossuarez46 19:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above arguments on crystal-balling/original research. Mallocks 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. As the external links on the BRIC article show, speculation about India or China's rising power is not original research, but documentation of the research being conducted by a number of investment firms, notably that of Goldman Sachs. As the BRIC article clearly also needs help, I would suggest a merger of these articles into an encyclopedic article about the acronym "BRIC" (created by Goldman Sachs) and its meaning, which would necessarily include a summary of the research that firms have conducted about the rise of certain developing countries in the world. --Episcopo 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever is verifiable, delete the OR bits. Besides, the articles are awkwardly named. --Alan Au 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Still no vote, but I'm wondering what we are going to do in the future with Potential Oscar Winners—Martin Scorsese? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting read, unsourced, appears to be original analysis. Delete - OR. Guettarda 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystalballism after merging any worthy content to other relevant articles such as India, Superpower, etc. dbtfz^talk 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Unreferenced and speculative in the extreme. If kept, move to NPOV and non-asserting title such as "Global status of India" - currently the title is an unequivocal statement that India is a potential superpower, which is problematic at best. FCYTravis 22:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. These are essential topics for the future of the world, discussed in academia and the popular media. Given the hundreds of books that have been written, references should by fairly easy to find India superpower books, Europe superpower books, China superpower books. -- JJay 01:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but sometimes you've got to start from scratch. Rather than hold dozens of line-item debates across three talk pages to remove every bit of original research until nothing is left, it makes more sense to decide the fate of this content here and now. Melchoir 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason to start anywhere but right here. That's why I voted strong keep. For those who prefer scholarly articles- Europe superpower 14,000 Google scholar hits, India superpower 8,000 hits, China Superpower 12,000 hits. -- JJay 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those numbers are either deliberatly decpetive or terribly careless, as they include things like the texts below. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... as the world’s sole remaining superpower, has a ... and groans from some of India’s traditional...
        • ... two major partners in Asia, India and Vietnam ... Writing when the USSR was still in existence as a viable superpower.
    • Wikipedians are pretty smart. I'm sure they can find one or two good sources there. If not they can buy some of those books at amazon. But thanks again for the always helpful and constructive comments. -- JJay 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep China (or Merge with Major powers), Delete the rest. I think that there have been many news coverage about China, the "next" superpower. Well, surely those news article are crystal-balling themselves. But, as an encyclopedia, we can quote those news sources which themselves contain predictions? Heilme 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a pretty biased opinion, the Australian news coverage has been all over India's potential in the news. But I guess this page is for opinions. Please note that if China is kept and India is deleted, I will personally work towards getting the Indian article back on the Potential Superpowers page. There are many references available, just haven't had the time to look at them yet.
    • Comment well, I'm not the only one thinking of this (scroll above). Some arguments are weaker than the other. But personally, I'll respect whatever the decision comes out here in the end. Whether it's delete all, delete some, or not delete at all. Heilme 08:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Good content, but duplicates existing material, and 'Potential' gives it away as original research. Maybe something like "21st century regional powers" could be made out of it. Peter Grey 07:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all unless rewritten. IMHO it will serve Wikipedia better to simply delete all these articles and reboot them at a later stage with proper references. Zunaid 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete An encyclopedia should talk about Superpower and it should talk about India, China, etc... And in the context of either of those two discussions, it may be considered reasonable to mention something along the lines of what these articles are trying to achieve. But to push them separately into their own article crosses the boundaries of POV & original research. Eusebeus 11:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, crystal-ballism. Vizjim 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to transwiki, in line with Oneearth's suggestion below. Vizjim 17:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. This is without a doubt original research. Sijo Ripa 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. If kept, I would urge a proponent of these articles to rename them to something better (without hyphens). youngamerican (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. While the articles are interesting and readable it is not aim of encyclopedia to guess the future. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. Deltabeignet 01:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Unencylopedic, besides being a nut-case attractor & flame-war friendly. --Pamri • Talk 03:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The articles on China, EU and India should be kept because this is a real happening phenomena of the world. What must be done is to provide more reference links to each. Bostonjunkie 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I write an essay full of original research and then retroactively seek out external verification of the individual points I've already made, the result is still original research. This is completely backwards. Melchoir 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the points are factual, it has been proven now through immense hard work. Appreciate the references, read through all 130 of them...Nobleeagle 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly, really, appreciate that you have worked hard. But if you read through the "delete" comments above, you'll find that 130 one-sentence verifications do not address many of those contributors' concerns. At Wikipedia:No original research you'll find the policy that bans "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that... would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'". These articles seem like a textbook case of that problem. I'm satisfied that all 130 points are true and, in themselves, verifiable. But who decides which facts concerning India are relevant to its potential to be a superpower, or even which facts work towards or against becoming a superpower? The article does not name any scholars, authors, politicians, thinktanks, advocacy groups, governments, or any entity as having made those decisions; it is only fair to assume that they have been made by you. It is that kind of analysis -- that kind of synthesis -- that we must avoid if we are to build a meaningful and trustworthy encyclopedic article. Instead we have a potentially unlimited list of facts heaped into a "good" pile and a "bad" pile. If you find such a list helpful, you may want to preserve it somewhere else, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Melchoir 09:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given the number of books and articles on the subject there is no OR. We did not invent the idea that these countries are being named as potential future superpowers. If we were doing articles like Potential Superpower: Belgium, or Potential Superpower: Monaco then your points might be valid. What is being offered is a synthesis, like with any encyclopedia article, of the ideas found in reputable sources. -- JJay 10:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying this research is original in the sense that something like it hasn't been done before; I'm saying it's original in the sense of WP:NOR, and the mere existence of good sources somewhere does not vindicate it. I do believe, unlike many of the delete voters, that would be possible and beneficial to write an article on this topic that adheres to policy. Nonetheless, this article is not it. If it really offers a synthesis of ideas found elsewhere, and not just a list of facts, why doesn't it identify where those ideas come from? "X group emphasizes the importance of Y to India's potential superpower status"; it's not that hard. Instead I see atlases, news items, and maps. The article jumps from primary sources to conclusions, and that's way too OR for me. Melchoir 11:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the China article is the one that needs more references, most of the points are obvious facts that no reader would be surprised with, they just need a source to prove they are facts. So that a 2-year-old reader wouldn't take them for lies. :) Nobleeagle 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- After improving wherever possible. Oneearth 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and this vote should be sufficient to allow future ariticles like Potential Superpowers—Papau New Guinea to be deleted on sight - Melchoir and others are just on point on this issue. Adding sources for the individual facts (e.g. India' military budget is XXX, India is a democracy) does not change the fact that the overall point of the article, that the synethesis of all of this information into the conclusion that India may or may not be a rising superpower is original research. All of the facts in these articles could be merged into the respective articles or subarticles for those countries, but I am hesitant to vote merge becuase (1) it appears that these references have been added after the fact with the intent of camoflaguing the OR (2) all of the facts in this article are probably covered already, in those respective articles. (3) There is no one volunteering to perform such a merge and new "references" would likely be added to these articles faster than they could be merged. In short, framing these facts as factors is POV original research and possibly an innapropriate fork. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OR, I don't think so. For recent examples see Stephen Cohen, India: Emerging Power, Brookings Institution, 2002, which starts out, "this book examines the proposition that India is becoming a major power, [1], Or Ted Fishman, China, Inc.: How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and the World, Scribner, 2005, [2] or T. R. Reid, The United States Of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy, Penguin, 2004. [3] Leading think tanks, scholars and government agencies have been addressing this topic for years. Arguing that articles should be deleted if references are added after the fact would mean disqualifying almost every article at wikipedia. All we do is synthesize available facts from reputable sources, such as books from major publishers. Furthermore, every article here is an essay and problems with "conclusions" are dealt with through editing. It amazes me that every crack-pot conspiracy theory can get an article here, such as Elvis Sightings, or every reality show participant, or that we have 100s of articles linked to Deep Space 9 (as if all that attention was not in itself OR), or that we can do a serious article on a marginal issue like Accusations of rape against United States presidents, which of course prominently features Pres. Bush based on an article in one newspaper, but a substantial topic with ramifications for the future of the world can not be discussed here, or at best its "facts" need to be swept away within the country articles. -- JJay 14:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References have not even been added after the fact. I still see no indication of where these arguments come from; all we have is a list of facts and a huge "further reading" section that hasn't been used. This could be a worthy topic, but it needs to be done correctly. In particular, an article that focuses on speculation must meet higher standards than our average article that focuses on a well-understand, factual topic. OR is the most important policy here, and it has not been satisfied. Nor, in fact, does anyone seem to have a plan to satisfy it, except to verify all the individual minutae and point the reader to a slew of books we haven't read, which may or may not agree with the article. This is unacceptable. Melchoir 21:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • So in many of your minds, Wikipedia should go no without in depth acknowledgement of the power India, China and the European Union have. Re-read the articles, if you see anything un-mathematical or un-sourced that deals with the future then delete that bit. But what most of the article is, is an acknowledgement and list of the plus and minus points of a nation which will undoubtedly be helpful to the reader. Wikipedia can be the best NPOV source of information in relation to Potential Superpowers or it can just pretend to ignore this importan matter. The choice is for the voters!Nobleeagle 05:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on the fact that even though it is entirely factually, it is still drawing a conclusion based on facts. It is an assessment of something that may happen in the future; this has no place in the Wikipedia. This could be a sub-section of India at the very least. This reads like someones report or an article from The Economist or Time magazine. If this article is encyclopedia material, maybe we could have an article on Future Millionaires- Me or more seriously, Future Wars- Fiji Vs. Eritrea (entirely supported my facts, of course). Delete, please. DevanJedi 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI doubt you'll get as many sources for Fiji and Eritrea when compared to the sources and obvious media speculation on China and India. Nobleeagle 06:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Maybe, but maybe if I try hard enough I will find something. The question is not whether facts are available or not, but whether using 'media speculation' to draw conclusions about the future is worthy of an article here. I am of Indian origin myself and believe that India has a good chance of becoming a super power; but my beliefs/hopes/informed speculation, backed up by facts, are not what the Wikipedia is about. DevanJedi 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - AN IDEA : The wikicities [4] has no policy against "report/factual synthesis/etc". Does it? Theres a wiki in wikicity called futures [5] dealing with all kind of futururistic topics (crystal balling included), but its not geeky/wierdo things, rather very rational stuff. Maybe we can put these items there (provided its inhabitants give green signal) under geopolitics [6] or whatever and we can just provide links to them in superpower as external links. This way (1) Its not in wikipedia and hence no policy breaking and (2) real facts (and work) can survive. Any comments? An observation - I noticed in deletion statistics that this article has drawn the largest number of "Votes" & "comments" among others in last few days. That proves that the topic was contentious. That itself makes wiking fun :) Oneearth 12:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nichalp. Un-encyclopaedic and OR. And I know from experience that the existance of long lists of references is no indication of encyclopaedic content. The fact that pages are composed admirably (as these are) does not mean they are encyclopaedic. Matter should be culled out to these pages to craft sections, on each relevant country-page, of their superpower potential. ImpuMozhi 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research by novel interpretation. Moreover the talk pages make blatantly clear that the articles are OR. Moving them out of article space to save material for merging (e.g. into subpages of the respective country articles) would also be acceptable, but there does not appear to be any hope for these pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Is there a point to this article? What sense does it make to try and gauge a country's future status in the world by taking an inventory of its capabilities at a point in time and making predictions (referenced or otherwise) on how those capabilities may play out at a future point in time?? This has no place in an encyclopedia. AreJay 22:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Futures Wikicities as per Oneearth. These articles have serious flaws, but someone put a lot of work into them, and they belong in a place where nobody will want to delete them. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 16:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • STRONG KEEP:

So long as the requisite sources/citations are provided, I think we should keep the article on Russia's potential to become a superpower in the future. The article is well written and summarizes the key issues very well. Besides, I think that Russia indeed has a potential to become one of the superpowers IN THE LONG RUN. Russia arguably has more natural resources and raw materials than any other country in the world and if wise policies are pursued, its prospects for economic recovery may be very strong. If nothing else, it can already be called an 'energy superpower'. As far as its military and space technology is concerned, it currently is far more advanced than China or India. It still has the capacity to make first class weapons that can rival those manufactured in the West. Russia has territories spreading through 11 time zones. Its geography can allow it to become a major player in European, Central Asian, Middle Eastern and Eastern Asian affairs simultaneously. Given these, it should be considered in a category separate from Japan who -in MILITARY terms is nothing more than a protectorate of the US- and Brazil which can only be considered a major REGIONAL power. There are major challenges lying ahead of Russia. Economy, demographics, territorial integrity and a demoralized army are just a few. However, so long as the country can have a strong and competent leadership,many of these challenges may be overcome, returning to Russia a status in international politics that it deserves. My suggestion is: DON'T REMOVE the article.

I suggest that you guys also consult these articles before reaching the final decision:

    http://www.saag.org/papers17/paper1682.html
    http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=187

Stargate70: Keep. This article is great. It is informataive, and does not seem biased.

Comment This is why I'm saying we should keep the article. It is informative and most of it does not seem to be OR. But most importantly, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that can be one of THE best sources of information, and this article is part of this idea.Nobleeagle 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. (Already voted delete) When these pages get deleted, shouldn't the "potential superpowers" section of the Superpower page be deleted also? As the same applies to that section then. Sijo Ripa 09:48, 15 March 2006 (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.