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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it reads at the moment this page is basically a badly written dictionary entry and lists the different meanings of the word nationality. For encyclopedia purposes the term nationality is essentially synonymous with the word citizenship and I propose to delete the current article and replace it with a redirect to citizenship. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of nationality is certainly notable, and goes well beyond a simple dictionary definition. And as for being the same as citizenship, that patently is not and has not been so in every case. There is a related article at Nationalism, but nationality as a precise identity requires an article of its own, if only to distinguish it from citizenship.. --AJHingston (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect the only commonality between Nationalism and Nationality is the the first nine letters. How are Nationality and Citizenship patently different? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improve, don't delete. The concept is undoubtedly important. --JaGa^talk 23:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly not arguing that nationality is not an important issue. I'm just saying that citizenship and nationality are the same thing. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Many people in various parts of the world define themselves by their 'nationality' not their country's passports--or citizenship. Spain's Basques and Catalans may consider their nationality more important than being a citizen of Spain. Does anyone think the Tibetans and Muslim Uighurs of Western China consider themselves Chinese for a second just because their passports say so? Nationality counts a lot in countries with significant ethnic minorities like Nigeria, Burma, India...where people consider their nationality as more important than the country they live in oftentimes. Even modern Belgium has had almost no government for many months due to conflicts between the Dutch speaking Flemings in the North and the French speaking Walloons in the South. I doubt the Flemings care very much about being a citizen of Belgium...and more about being a Fleming unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Maybe I should be clearer what I mean here. At the moment Nationality is basically a disambiguation page. Nationality can mean either membership of a state or of a nation. I would argue that the first meaning is the primary topic and propose to redirect nationality to citizenship. The lead or a hatnote at citizenship can point people toward nation. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator is proposing to make the page into a redirect. That is a matter of ordinary editing not requiring deletion. The various aspects of the topic and how they may best be covered on the relevant pages should be settled by ordinary talk-page discussion. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page isn't so bad that it needs to be dynamited, and pages that don't need dynamite should be rewritten. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.