Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International recognition of South Sudan

:{{la|International recognition of South Sudan}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|International recognition of South Sudan}})

This type of article is only useful for the likes of Kosovo where its creation is disputed by the parent state and other countries disagree with each other on the matter. The creation of South Sudan is uncontroversial in that Sudan has agreed to its secession. There is no evidence that any state plans to snub it by refusing to recognise. The list of countries who recognise SS will just contain those places where someone has found a list reference. Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge with Foreign relations of South Sudan. It's better solution. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with Foreign relations of South Sudan or keep. --- Dufo (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support The article is transient and unnecessary. It will change continuously over the coming few days, before becoming pointless and redundant once the nations of the world have had the time to do what they need to do in order to extend their recognition to South Sudan. P M C 16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with Foreign relations of South Sudan like in the Foreign relations of Montenegro page. --Ahmetyal 16:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with Foreign relations of South Sudan. Follow the same format as with Foreign relations of Montenegro (specificaly this section), the last uncontroversial state to declare independence.--23230 ^talk 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep - for now. Lets keep the article and if it is proven in the next coming weeks that there are no issues with the recognition then lets merge. But for now it is only a guessing game if all countries will recognize south sudan.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, also merge is an option. This kind of content is not useful only for the likes of Kosovo or Abkhazia, we have similar content on Montenegro for an example even though it's not a disputed territory but a UN member.--Avala (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• STRONG keep both have different functions. This pertains to who recognises them, that other page (as the foreign policy grows in the coming weeks/months/.years will differ to deal with general policy for the country and individual relations with specific states. as it does for other countries like palestine, kosovo, abkhazia , etc. we cant delete ie based on 1 day of independence, there ar emore pressing issues than forein policy statements.Lihaas (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - this is a joke nom. It has to be. We have these pages for other partially recognised states; ABK, SO, KSV... Outback the koala (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• : There is a key difference: this independence is not contested or controversial. Unlike the cases you mention, the "parent country" is among the recognizing states, making the rest of the procedure a trivial formality. --illythr (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• ::Even so it's wayy to early to make that kind of call. Within one day of indepedence you propose deletion? Come on... At the very least propose merging later on if nothing comes, but the page should remain in place for now. Outback the koala (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Wait about a week or so until the dust settles, then merge with Foreign relations of South Sudan, purging most of the recognition trivia. --illythr (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, that would definitly be the better option because it will give time for this article to be evaluated better as time goes by.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wait, then probably delete - I agree with Illythr. It is too early to say for certain, but this is highly likely to be an unnecessary article. Probably all countries will recognise South Sudan so it will just end up as a list of all countries (i.e. pointless). This sort of article is only useful where there are countries that refuse to recognise, and there's no evidence of that yet. There is no comparison with International recognition of Kosovo - Kosovo is disputed, South Sudan is not. Bazonka (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. The content is notable by definition, but I don't care whether it's got its own page or is part of "foreign relations of". —Nightstallion 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - South Sudan is currently a partially recognized state, so this article should be kept until all the sovereign states recognize it. Rangond (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I think a number of the keep arguments run into aspects of WP:NOT in particular:
• WP:NOT#NEWS Wikipedia is not the place to track who has recognised South Sudan in the last 2 minutes. An article like this should only be created once in has been established that whether the recognition of SS has been established as a notable subject.
• WP:CRYSTAL the non-recognition list and the map with three red countries was compiled by editors who were looking in their extremely cracked crystal balls. Saying that the article might be useful is still using a crystal ball, just like saying there will be at least one hurricane next storm season.
• WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:IINFO We don't need to list every country that has recognised SS until such time as recognition of SS has been established as a notable subject. For the moment the list is just cruft as illustrated by talk page arguments about who was second in the list.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. It is important that the info is somewhere, though it could be in the foreign relations article. It's likely that very soon, almost every country will recognise it, but that's not yet true, and some of the omissions as I write this are significant. (In time, this article may not be required, but that's crystal ball gazing at the moment.) Ringbark (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge, with the discussion of which is more appropriate left to the talk page. This really should have been handled there instead of bringing it here. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, international recognition by all nations of the globe cannot be assumed. This page is useful for now though merging may be an option in the future. For now though my vote is keep and do not merge. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 20:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. At least for now. Very useful article about current event. --GreenZeb (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now...at least until we know how the UN Assembly will vote on admitting South Sudan as its 193rd member state next week. A majority of UN states will have to vote here which will be an indication of which way the vote will be going. If it passes, then I think we can assume most UN member states will recognise South Sudan and this page can be merged to foreign relations of South Sudan. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for one week, then either delete (if recognition is unanimous) or merge only the dissenting states into the Foreign Relations article. I suppose it's possible that things might get complicated down the road, but with over 50 states already recognizing South Sudan including Sudan itself, I can't really imagine any scenario in which keeping this up for good would make sense.ChristopherGregory (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge in two weeks time every country will recognise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

:: Also as it is protected and no admin appears willing to maintain it properly, look at the talk page, so many places have recognised which aren't listed, it's UN membership isn't mentioned, South Sudan was admitted by acclamation (which is with no objections). This page is not only unnecessary but is protected without a willing admin to maintain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep A page like this should be created for every soveriegn state.XavierGreen (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

::Are you for real? That will result in 200 articles, each containing an identical list of 200 countries. And where will we get the dates from? This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in ages. Bazonka (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Dont bite. That his opinion and he has a right to it.Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Bazonka, the lists would not be the same, Montenegro for an example is recognized by 144, not 200 countries.--Avala (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

::::We couldn't possibly cope with another 200 articles. The server would run out of kerosene. Manning (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep while this is in major flux. After that, merge into Foreign relations of South Sudan in summary form. Hpa (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Nominator does not have a very strong point at all. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep To have a track of the recognition from other countries is a valuable piece of information. Would you like to have a list for your country´s international recognition? And so far I know, Eritrea and Iran are not to recognize, and looks like many other counrties are not in a hurry to do so. Also, in international politics it is importanmt to know the date a country gives recognition. It sends a political message of commitment. Coquimbano 08:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, then merge after all the states are gathered. 26oo (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with Foreign relations of South Sudan. No state has denied recognition. The dates are useful, though they don't need an article of their own. Nightw 09:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Because of the international pressure before the "independence" several states have declared not to recognize the country, like Iran, Eritrea, Libya and others. Derim Hunt 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• :This is totally misleading. Libya has already formerly recognised South Sudan and the mentions of the other two states you name were removed from the article because the evidence is the other way. The previous inclusion of these three states as non-recognisers was just the sort of cracked WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing that makes the existence of the article harmful. Better to not have an article than to have ignorant speculation.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep too long to be merged with foreign relations of south sudan. If at some point its recognition is no longer an issue, it can be merged ie why there is no International recognition of France. -Drdisque (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep... for now. - At some point it should be merged with Foreign relations of South Sudan, but not yet - at the moment the topics are sufficiently distinct to each merit their own articles. Manning (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a pretty good article. --Bearas (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - very useful, we will merge it later, when all nations recognize this country. -WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I was also thinking of the "fact" that some of the merge !voters had, there is a likelyhood that countries like cyprus and azerbaijan for example will not recognize south sudan as that could be interpretated as an acceptance of their own breakaway republics. So there is no 100% fact of full recognition.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Useful article that shows South Sudan's status in the world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Hmm this article is vandalised so someone don't want it. I don't known who, but for e.g. why the Poland was deleted from there? The link was good, and they have also EU presidency now. Just looking like someone don't want help money from EU budget for South Sudan... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgmail (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep There's potential for expansion here, there has been analysis about how it politically compares to the Palestinians and Kosovo: [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/07/israel-lessons-of-south-sudan.html][http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/kuwait/kuwait-mp-challenges-recognition-of-south-sudan-before-kosovo-1.837417] Qrsdogg (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per comments of 26oo & Qrsdogg, valuable information with potential for expansion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep As a sub-page of Foreign affairs of..., possibly to be merged later when appropriate. James F. (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The article can not be edited anymore. Was there vandalism?. Coquimbano 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep at least for now. If indeed all (or almost all) countries recognize in the near future, it can go. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• 'Strong keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.110.239 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now, if/when it is recognized by every UN member state, then the page will be useless so at that point we could delete it. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This nomination cannot be serious. The article should not be merged. It is a significant topic in its own right, and other nations have equivalent articles. IainUK talk 00:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep—in reply to the nominator: this type of article is actually very useful later on to see when each country recognized the country in question. It's information that's otherwise hard to find a few years from the fact. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with Foreign relations of South Sudan, as the present article is effectively just a list, though an important one. I think all the present content can be simply merged into the foreign relations article and it would look great. One larger article covering about the same subject instead of two smaller ones. — MK (^t/_c) 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep WP:CRYSTAL seems appropriate as a reason. Presuming UN recognition and the number of non-recognizing states being down to a handful, reconsider.
• Keep Notable article with useful encyclopaedic information. Perhaps it could be expanded to include the establishment of diplomatic relations??? IJA (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Split or weak keep I agree that this is bound to be a mostly useless article, but it does have lots of good citations for the recognizing dates and instruments that can form the basis of the bilateral relations stubs. Cmprince (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment South Sudan has now been accepted as a member of the United Nations and the African Union. As such the nature of this article has changed, as S. Sudan clearly has the reignition of the international community. No other UN member has a similar article, though those who declared independence recently (Montenegro) have similar sections in their Foreign Affairs article. Therefore this article has no purpose and as such I would strongly suggest it should be merged into Foreign relations of South Sudan.--23230 ^talk 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

::I'm not sure it's in the AU yet, but otherwise I totally agree with 23230. I also worry that the sources that are used here are a bit hit-and-miss; some are contradictory, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're not getting the full picture - some small or underdeveloped countries may well have recognised but without the relevant media fanfare. Bazonka (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:::You are right, South Sudan says it is a member but there is no good source. I have raised it on the talk page. Anyway, the point about the UN still stands (source: [http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39034&Cr=South+Sudan&Cr1=]).--23230 ^talk 21:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (small-ed as slightly off topic)

::::International recognition of Israel is an example. Outback the koala (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::Israel is an example of a country whose existence is disputed. South Sudan (probably) isn't. Bazonka (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a clear case of recentism and should be handled accordingly - wait until the news spike falls off, then do a comprehensive rewrite. Since the bulk of the information in this article is trivial, the rewritten content should fit snugly into a section of the foreign relations article and, eventually, the history one. --illythr (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• UN membership doesnt change the fact that all countries hasnt recognized south sudan yet. The best is to Keep and then in a few weeks time when we know more about recognitions and events we can make the article into a foreign relations article or similar. But I stand by my Keep opinion,--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Will you all please make up your minds so we can move on? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment User:Canadian Bobby makes a good point, can we finally close this AfD and get back to to improving this encyclopaedic article regardless if we keep it with the current title or merge it with the Foreign Relations article. IJA (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

::It's been a week since independence and there has been absolutely no controversial or unexpected events with regards to recognition. S.S. has been recognised by a large number of nations, including the country it declared independence from, all but one of its neighbours, all 5 permanent UN security council members and the G4. It has easily become a member of the United Nations, and yet the existence of this article makes it seem that there is some controversy over South Sudan's existence, putting it on par with Kosovo or South Ossetia. As far as I can see only one UN member has a similar article, Israel, and that is a special case.

::As far as I can see, the votes above are mainly either merge or keep for a bit, then merge. I would say that, a week after independence, this article has frankly outlived its (questionable) usefulness. Overtime more countries will be added to the list, but that is all. If someone notable refuses to recognise it, then that might as well have as section in Foreign relations of South Sudan anyway. There is no reason to have a temporary article like this that most people agree will eventually be merged anyway. Therefore it should be merged now into Foreign relations of South Sudan.--23230 ^talk 13:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

:::I totally agree. Please can we have some level-headedness now that the euphoria of having a new country has waned. I urge the keepers to reconsider. What is the benefit of this article? Bazonka (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

::::I am questioning in were lies the harm in Keeping this article for now. And in a few weeks time when the questions have been answered on how all countries are handling the question on south sudan independence, then start a new AfD or talk page discussion on how to move forward with this article. Seems like the "merge" and "delete" users here wants to rush a decision when infact it takes some time to see how it all will work out.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::It is extremely likely that all countries will recognise South Sudan. Some will take their time, and others will do it informally or under the radar without any media coverage. The problem with this article is that it seems to be operating under the assumption that all countries will recognise in the same way, and that we will be able to document this. They won't, and we can't - it is misleading. And, unless any nation is vocal in its opposition to the independence of South Sudan, then all we're doing is effectively documenting how efficient different countries' foreign ministries are, not how they feel about South Sudan. Bazonka (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

:Keep, to long for merge(WP:SIZERULE). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

:Keep but Rename Keep for the historical record but rename International reaction to South Sudan Independence or something like that. NelsonSudan (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

::Actually that is a good idea. It allows the article to become more than a list and therefore coverage of things like how Libya and Iran who preferred independence not to happen but were not going to be obstructive and how Eritrea may have had its own reasons for nto wanting independence.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

:Comment I think that a rename to International reaction to South Sudan Independence makes the most sense, too, as the nominator writes. I would note that many countries in Latin America such as Mexico, most of Central America, Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica and Venezuela still haven't reacted to South Sudan's declaration of independence as of today. But the most unexpected is Zimbabwe in Africa: President Mugabe celebrated with the South Sudanese leaders on their independence day and still Zimbabwe hasn't officially recognised South Sudan. Strange. Anyway, the thing is a clear majority of states (perhaps 100 UN member states) should recognise South Sudan before this article should be renamed, I think. But that's just my view. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

:Oppose Er, what? There are countries that do NOT recognize. Vast majority does, this does not mean everybody. Furthermore the dates of when countries recognized is also relevant. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:07, 17 July 2011 (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.