Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by statehood


 * 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 was   no consensus. There is no clear-cut consensus here - however, I am closing this without prejudice against a speedy renomination should it be felt that it was a suitable next step. However, I would advice at least a week or so of discussion on the article's talk page to allow a clear consensus to be approached. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Following a request on my talk page, I have relooked at this close, and concluded that I was in fact mistaken to close it as "no consensus". I have re-read the arguments presented, and realise that the consensus was in fact to delete - especially when the fact that the "keeps" were mainly from editors with limited experience in the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia - and one of them changed to "delete", but neglected to strike out their previous contribution to the discussion. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by statehood

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Redundant to List of sovereign states by date of formation. A merge tag has been sitting there for a while, but it is clear from the intro to this article that it has no idea what it is about and, being unsourced, there is nothing suitable to be merged. It violates WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V and probably WP:COATRACK and WP:LISTCRUFT, as well. To demonstrate, the title assumes a distinction between a "country" and a "state" and implies to tell us when any given country became a state. Then its lead paragraph informs us that usually this date is just the first date on which a territory is mentioned! (And where are the reliable sources for the lead, which appears to determine the content?) The dates for most pre-modern states are baseless, San Marino being just the most obvious example, but since there is no clear date to assign to San Marino (or, if that's not important enough for you, France neither) it cannot possibly fit anywhere in this list. This page is unsalvageable and thus should be deleted. All titles redirecting to it, too, such as List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood. Srnec (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. Geez, what is not wrong with this article?.  He  iro  18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And would the closing admin please see the comment left by an anon. on the talk page to this AfD. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: the problems of current article is only lack of reference, which I have started to add. If one view its history, he/she will understand that the introduction is only a copy-paste from another article, and it doesn't suit here. If admins give me enough time, I can improve this article. As an example, in the reference which is used for China, the author mentions Yu the great is the founder of China, and same thing about Korea. i suggest the name of article be moved to List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't address the WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V and WP:COATRACK issues.  He  iro  16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What does Yu the great being the founder of China have to do with Chinese statehood? And what China? Are we talking the Republic of China? Do you see why this page is just not even possible? Srnec (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Srnec's reasoning. I see no practical use for this list to exist separate from individual country/history articles, even if it were to be rewritten with sourced information. 207.207.127.233 (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Could be redundant to List of sovereign states by date of formation if the later article contained such a chronological list – it does not! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redundancy was not the only reason for deletion, but the titles of these articles indicate that they are redundant, even if one of them does not have content to match its title. But there is a sortable list section in the latter article, so you're just wrong. Srnec (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP; And suggest Edition rather than Deletion; just because there are some items that are not properly entered, doesn't mean the whole article should be deleted. Many of the similar articles have the same problems and they are all in need of Editions. Thank you. Armaiti (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Armitai has only eleven article-space edits since beginning editing in January of this year. That and the fact that s/he does not address the issues raised in the nomination suggest that this vote is of slight value. After all, we're not a democracy. Srnec (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to the discussion of Merger Proposal I say making better articles out of these two is possible and would be good if they would do this. But it needs a great deal of work. But deletion is not a proper answer to the need of such articles.--Hame fan harif (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost all of Hame's article-space edits are to the article up for deletion. Considering the lack of argument accompanying his vote, and the fact that s/he has only been editing since August, why should the closing admin pay attention to it? Does either of the above two users know or understand the policies I linked to in the nomination? Maybe they do, but who can tell from their non-arguments? Srnec (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; You don't get it. I understand your reasoning for deletion. You can delete the whole article but I say we can create an article similar to this one as we discussed it in Merger Proposal. I was one of the people saying the article is nonesense. That's what we should do, creating articles that has been discussed in Merger Proposal discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hame fan harif (talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Articles that deal with a myriad of different histories and time periods (in this case, all histories and time periods!) would be hard to maintain by a handful of editors with a general interest in the subject. Besides, the history of each state and its formation is NOT set in stones, and there are new and conflicting theories, which would be hard to fairly represent and keep up-to-date in the space provided (a pity table cell). Moreover, readers can already find this information in the article of each country (often better maintained and more watched than this article). So I see no point in maintaining this article, and such efforts are better used elsewhere.  Wiqi  - talk 15:41, 29 October 2010 (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.