- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The outcome of this request for deletion was to 
Keep. No consensus to delete. I will create Least developed country. Osiris (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Category:Least developed countries
[change source]- Category:Least developed countries (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No criteria specified or explanation given for this category; I had to look at enwiki's category to see what it was. Even if explained, however, I think a list, possibly in a new article like en:Least developed country, would serve us better. Auntof6 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
Discussion
[change source]- Keep. This is a relevant class of country, defined by the United Nations. The criteria are too lengthy to detail on the cat page. En has an article and a cat - it doesn't have to be either/or. Jim Michael (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. An article would be much better. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is defining enough of an aspect of countries for it to be worthy of an article and a category. Why should it not have both? There's no rule or guideline against having both. Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe if you create an article, or at least give a BRIEF explanation in the category, we'd be able to see that. (You wouldn't have to list specific criteria.) As it is, just having a category called "Least developed countries" looks arbitrary and doesn't tell us anything. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- There's no rule or guideline that says an article should exist prior to a cat's creation.
- I have no problem with there being a brief description on the cat. Can you suggest how to word the criteria in a way that's both brief and simple?
- You're talking about this term as though it's obscure jargon or merely someone's opinion. However, it's a well-known term which is clearly defined by a respected international organisation.
- Jim Michael (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't say an article had to exist. I'm just saying that that would be one way to explain what the category is. I understand now that it's a known term. However, I only know that because I researched it. Our readers and editors shouldn't have to research things to understand what they are. Without some explanation as to what this is, it looks fairly meaningless. As for a brief, simple description, how about this: "A least developed country is a country that the United Nations thinks is not very developed compared to other countries." There is certainly a lot more to it, but this gives the reader an idea of what it's about. I don't like to see much more explanation than that on a category, because if you have more it should go in an article, not on the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe if you create an article, or at least give a BRIEF explanation in the category, we'd be able to see that. (You wouldn't have to list specific criteria.) As it is, just having a category called "Least developed countries" looks arbitrary and doesn't tell us anything. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is defining enough of an aspect of countries for it to be worthy of an article and a category. Why should it not have both? There's no rule or guideline against having both. Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. We aren't enwiki and, frankly, I don't want to be enwiki. A simple article that clearly spells out the UN definition and lists the countries is good enough. The list can be linked in the Related pages section of the country articles that would be affected by the cat. --Lithorien Talk • Changes 10:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- We might not want to put such a link in the related pages section, because countries can go off of the list. It might be better to mention it in the body of the article, along with non-date-dependent language: possibly something like "This country was added to the United Nations' least developed country list on January 1, 2000." --Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Er, well, actually I think we should keep this one. It does need a formal criterion: wherever is current on the UN list. At present it lacks an overview article, and misses out half the countries which actually are on the UN list. Actually, it just lists African countries. What about Haiti!? Bhutan?! One benefit of this list is that it is limited by an external source which can always be checked. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Many more countries need to be added to this cat, including the two you mention. I've not yet added to this cat most of the countries that are eligible, because it was nominated for deletion soon after I created it. Jim Michael (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Agree we need overview article of definition and criteria. Otherwise arbitrary 'development' can mean population growth, tall buildings,thriving music scene, green parks or rescuing homeless dogs in Detroit. This is an important designation of the UN and will continue into the future. Fylbecatulous talk 16:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.