Deletion of List of countries by external debt

Comment: We revert vandalism, we don't bin the whole article. If the article is unreliable due to lack of |reliable sources, then that is justifiable for deletion. However, if there are reliable sources such as the IMF but the article is in a bad shape then we should , not delete the article outright just because it is "too much hassle
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: It is our #STATS|policy not to include excessively raw statistics.  If readers want this information we should direct them to a source such as the http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ed/ed.htm IMF which tabulates these properly.  And this is best done in a summary article such as External debt.  Note that these figures are easily misunderstood or misrepresented.  The UK has a very large figure - almost as big as the USA.  This is being used in press scare stories but mostly represents the gross external liabilities of the financial institutions based in the City of London.  This has to be taken together with their corresponding assets because these institutions trade money back and forth on a grand scale and what really matters are the differences which determine the net profit/loss.  Failing to do so is contrary to  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:UNDUE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: This list easily passes  with a clearly defined criteria. Flaws in figures and updated data need to be addressed but not through an all-out deletion. In the mean time, a warning template, such as {{tl|Disputed}} or {{tl|Expert-subject}}, can be added
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LSC)