Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stateless nation


 * 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   keep. Could be closed as "no consensus", but the strength of argument clearly builds on the keep side. I also note that none of the early deletion supporters (other than the nom) rebuts any of the later keep arguments. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Stateless nation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a soapbox. It's also covered by numerous other articles. This template links to a few articles covering this: Template:Separatist movements per continent Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not a useful list. There must the thousands of "ethnicities" within India — but no-one is proposing that each of them should become a nation. Maproom (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The content is already is covered neutrally elsewhere. I notice Hawaii's inclusion. It indicates there are 1 million Hawaiians. It doesn't show though if all or a majority of those 1 million support the highly fragmented Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I also have to note the use of language. Stateless nation. I've not checked the source listed as [1] but it seems abit cherry picked noting the following language used in the picture, "The U.S. President and Nobel Prize winner Woodrow Wilson published the self-determination law in 1918." I'm sure without reviewing the source but I think it is refering to the Fourteen Points. I question the language here. Using POTUS in such an authorative power over the world. Pushing a POV about the complicated issue of self determination. Over all this is a bit of a soapbox.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Duplicate !vote struck by nominator. Please do not format additional comments as if they are by separate discussion participants. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Was unaware that listing for nomination counted as a vote. Both the nomination were signed, so I'm not exactly sure how any one would assume they are froma seperate discussion participant. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a useful list, and a soapbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I am unclear why the problems noted above cannot be corrected through normal editing of the article. This seems to be a valid concept, and if problems are that people are including or not including things within some section of the article, there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater... -- Jayron  32  00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you removed the pictures, the Wilson quote, the list, and just about all of the current text and add sources you could probably fix it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why delete it, praytell? Deletion is not cleanup.  -- Jayron  32  01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there would be virtually nothing left.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Further I'm not exactly sure this topic has enough notability to stand on its own. Pretty much everything not contained in lists already made of seperatist movements. Other stuff doesn't even belong in the article. What remains is about Irredentism.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Çomment Looking at self determination, perhaps the caption is referring to Atlantic Charter rather than the Fourteen Points. But if so, then "published" is not the right word, as there was no formal document for the Atlantic Charter. "Imagine there's no countries / it isn't hard to do" -John Lennon. Anarchangel (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That couldn't be. The caption Lists Wilson as President and it also provides a year of 1918. Some of the points in the Fourteen points relate directly to self determination. Just for example. Point 13. The reconstitution of Poland. Which Poland Ceased in about 1790 something.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it may have been his speech on 11 February, 1918.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is quite notable, being covered by entire works such as:
 * Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations
 * Stateless Nations: Western European Regional Nationalisms and the Old Nations
 * Understanding Scotland: the sociology of a stateless nation
 * Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a Post-sovereignty Era
 * Arabism and Islam : stateless nations and nationless states
 * Stateless nation‐building: Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland in the changing state system
 * From the National State to the Stateless Nation 1821-1910
 * Strategies for the stateless nation: sustainable policies for the regions in Europe
 * Stateless nations and the emerging international order
 * It seems especially absurd to be nominating this for deletion when the Kurds seem on the verge of establishing a state and Scotland threatens to re-establish its independence. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * and there's already an article on it called Irredentism.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From the definitions at the start of the two articles, they do not appear to be describing the same concept. One (irredentism) describes the desires of one sovereign state to annex territory from another sovereign state.  The other (stateless nation) describes a group of people who otherwise meet the definition of a nation, but lack a sovereign state of their own.  I don't see where one concept is identical to the other.  -- Jayron  32  01:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually took the articles suggested relation at face without much thought. However further search leads me to the article on Separatism. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. Separatism implies that there's a group of people that desires separate political sovereignty for themselves.  This may or may not be related to the concept of a stateless nation.  Some stateless nations seek such separate sovereign states, some do not, some have differing opinions on the matter among themselves, some separatist movements are not based on ethnic or national lines, the two concepts deserve separate articles because they describe separate concepts.  -- Jayron  32  00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No sorry. It can imply a desire for seperate political Sovereignty. It can also imply a desire for autonomy as well. It can also imply choice segregation. All stateless nations are sepratists. Not may or may not be. It is ethnic and in some cases racial seperatism.Serialjoepsycho (talk)
 * Keep - many scholarly and popular books have been written about the concept. The article is not so poor as to require starting from scratch. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic itself passes WP:N, per the sources provided by User:Andrew Davidson. NorthAmerica1000 08:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a notable concept regardless of what should or shouldn't be listed as examples, and distinct enough from the other concepts the nominator has serially offered as the same without clear or persuasive explanation (to quote the nominator: "I actually took the articles suggested relation at face without much thought.") postdlf (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article did suggest the relation. And upon reflection of the comments above by Jayron, I did not consider that postion and did take the articles suggestions at a face value. However in my opening I did link it to Separatism and further discussed that connection later. In short it is Separatism. Like Staeless Nations, Separatist movements can call for secession or autonomy. All Stateless Nations are considered Separatist Movements.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Considered by whom? Jayron's explanation above on this issue has more weight in my view than your opinion here. postdlf (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only communicable difference is the narrower definition of a stateless nation. Specifically that the separatists be a nation without a state. I haven't went thru the entire list but a noticeable characteristic of a number of stateless nations is their classification as seperatist movements. As far as who, Svante Cornell. His Dissertation is about stateless nations or discusses them in this context. And honestly I could go and find more. But I fail to actually see the controversy in statless nations as separatist movements. Bring a separatist movement I see no notability for it's own free standing article. That doesn't mean it's not notable. I expected a conversation here could determine that. However that isn't much point in continuing forward in this atmosphere so I withdraw my nomination.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable concept. There are obvious issues with sourcing though, and it is questionable if that list of nations should be included.--Staberinde (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2014 (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.