Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by date of nationhood

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. All of the rename suggestions have been redirected back to the original title, so I'll not move it (and there's no gathering around any one name here anyway). -Splash 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

List of countries by date of nationhood
The lead of the article pretty well sums up the reasons for why the list should be deleted:


 * 1) Nation-building is a long evolutionary process. It is therefore practically impossible to come up with a single date for a nation's "birth".
 * 2) The following list is mainly based on data published by the CIA, and is therefore restricted to nations whose independence is recognised by the USA.
 * 3) The situation is futher complicated by the confusion between the terms nation (genereally considered an ethnic or cultural grouping) and state (an independent political entity).

There is no way to make this list useful, let alone NPOV. What makes it particularily biased is the chronological order which suggests that some nations are "older" than others. Still, many nations are listed more than once, with different dates.

I know many people have put considerable effort into the development of this list, but this cannot be an excuse for keeping a useless and biased article on WP. – Kpalion (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete – Kpalion (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful and informative. As for your objections:
 * Yes, it certainly is. That's why several nations are listed with more than one date. I consider it very appropriate.
 * Since creation of this list, it has been greatly expanded with data from other sources. Btw, "nations whose independence is recognised by the USA" is pretty much the same as "nations whose independence is recognized by some country", with Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Taiwan, and Western Sahara being the only contemporary exceptions I can think of.
 * This is a purely technical issue, that can be solved by rewording the introduction, or perhaps renaming the article.
 * Naive cynic 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep Trollderella 01:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid encyclopedic article.Amren (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - very useful, cleanup issues are not vfd issues -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This just needs cleaning up. Jaxl | talk 01:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful list. Capitalistroadster 04:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Date of Nationhood cannot be "one" specific year in many cases especially in older countries in new ones yes like in Brasil everyone knows when Dom João declared independence from Portugal or in the U.S.A. also but like on what "date" did someplace like Egypt become a nation plus Egypt as it is now has nothing to do with the Egypt of the Pharos and same with Rome and Greece so this article is too politically biassed and misleading.Wiki brah 05:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Usefulness should override the technicalities Tintin 05:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep : As per Tintin above Manik Raina 05:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Naive cynic. MCB 07:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * cautious keep, but subject to extensive cleanup. It is interesting, but it is intellectually lazy and it should incorporate discussion around the various types and stages of statehood. Peeper 09:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep --MicroFeet 11:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. List of largely arbitrary dates, inherently POV and very problematic, as the term "nation" is not clearly defined. Keeps out nations that do not have achieved a "national state" and includes some strange entries such as the German Democratic Republic, which I've never heard anyone consider a nation. Martg76 15:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If this misleading article is actually to be kept, I strongly urge a move to List of countries by date of statehood as suggested by Roodog2k below. Martg76 23:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP and remove delete tag, ignore previous editor . D. J. Bracey (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 15:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Instead of suggesting to suppress discussion, why don't you give a reason for your vote? Martg76 16:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue's been settled. Martg76 17:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Typical candidate for cleanup. 129.215.194.205 16:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitly needs some work, nothing that can't be fixed HoratioVitero 17:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (sorry 'bout that)
 * Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could need cleanup, but the concept of nation is fairly well understood. German Democratic Republic, aka. East Germany is not a strange entity; it sent people to the Olympics (e.g. 1968 Summer Olympics) and was recognized as a nation for decades. --Prosfilaes 17:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we shouldn't confuse statehood with nationhood. You'll have a hard time finding any German considering East Germany a nation, under whatever definition. The rename suggested below makes certainly more sense than keeping the page as it is. Martg76 22:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Naive cynic. --Dysepsion 17:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful and interesting. But hopefully some of the conflict that occurs on other pages on what constitutes statehood can be avoided. Rx StrangeLove 18:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Naive cynic. This article just needs some editing work, but could be useful and definitely encyclopedic. --Blackcap | talk 19:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. Changed vote after reading Roodog's points below. --Blackcap | talk 23:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * RENAME Good article, bad name. List of countries by date of statehood would be MUCH more accurate. For instance, believe it or not, several Nations exist within the United States, although this is an arguable point. Nine Nations of North America is one argument.  Navajo Nation is another argument.  JMHO, tho! Roodog2k 19:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Blackcap | talk 20:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, for reasons other have given above. Evil Eye 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepJournalist   C.[[Image:Smilie.gif|30px]] Holla @ me! |undefined
 * Rename to List of countries by date of statehood, per Roodog2k above. —Charles O'Rourke 23:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Possibly rename, if the editors of that article have a better name for it.  This is definitely useful information. --Idont Havaname 01:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - useful and interesting trivia. Agreed it should be renamed. 23skidoo 05:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful list. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename But do it to List of countries by date of independence please. While it is admittedly a U.S.-centric perspective, statehood does not make me think of independent sovereignity. Caerwine 14:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm game for that, its better than nationhood. Roodog2k 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's no good either. I'm afraid you can't escape a US-centric perspective. Nationhood or statehood not always equals independence. Many countries have existed since times immemorial but later lost and regained independence. For instance, Poland has existed since mid-10th century and the traditional date of Poland's statehood is 966. But because Poland was partitioned in the late 18th century and regained sovereignty after WW1, the date of independence is November 11, 1918. Poland's just an example, there are many more countries with similar histories. Perhaps, if the list is to stay (as it clearly is) it might be good to split it into (at least) to lists: one for countries by date of nationhood, and one for countries by (most recently regained) independence. The US, then, would be near the bottom of the former, and near the top of the latter. – Kpalion (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you ppl consider a useful list that as no valid arguments. Do you think modern Egypt sees the birth of its nation in Ancient Egypt? come on! I've renamed the article I hope all the participants of this vote clean the article, it is really an ashaming article for wikipedia, that others can use to discredit this encyclopedia, that I think overall is much more thruthful than the Microsoft one for instance. --Pedro 18:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not move the article while the vote is in progress. And BTW, Pedro, what is your vote? – Kpalion (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didnt saw it was in Vfd, i just moved. o.o, I think the best is to redirect and clean the article. -Pedro 10:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Pedro, how could you possibly not know it was in VfD when A) there's a huge template at the top of the page, saying it's in VfD, and B) you actually voted on the VfD page, just three posts above this one? --Blackcap | talk 16:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw it immidiatly, so what? It should be redirected again ending this vfd. --Pedro 23:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * O.K., I'm going to start with the problems one by one. The problem of why shouldn't I redirect/move a VfD page is dealt with in both WP:GVFD, an article you should have read before voting on a VfD, and in the message I left you on your talk page. Problem 2 is that moving this article is somewhat contentious and is not an opinion shared by the majority, some people want it moved to a different place, AND the title your moved it to is misspelled (capitalized "independence") and is disagreed with for various reasons. Your going ahead and moving it anyway shows a lack of respect for other's opinions. I also mentioned this on your talk page. Problem 3 is that you lied and said that you didn't know it was in VfD (three posts up), and when I called you on it, you said, "so what? It should be redirected again," which I take to mean that you don't paticularly care for the opinions of others, and that you didn't bother to read my message, which is what talk pages are for, or WP:DP and WP:GVFD. That's "so what." --Blackcap | talk 16:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Pedro did go ahead and move the article, unfortunately. I'll move it back and change the new List of countries by date of Independence, which is what he moved it to, to a redirect page. --Blackcap | talk 00:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Just tried and it looks like I can't do that. Well, that's unfortunate. Instead, I'm going to put a notice on the talk page with a link to this VfD so that at least there's some way to get here. --Blackcap | talk 00:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to be an admin to move it back. – Kpalion (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. Is the egg showing? --Blackcap | talk 16:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep "Difficult to NPOV" is not a reason to delete an article. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Definitely useful information. However, it could use a renaming. PBP 23:07, 28 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.