Just to get specific for a moment, the reason that states in the US federal system are the way they are is because of Article IV of the US Constitution:

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

So effectively dividing any state requires that state legislature's own consent, as well as the consent of Congress. In the case of Maine this was granted by the Massachusetts legislature, and in the case of West Virginia it was granted (somewhat controversially) by the Unionist "Restored" Virginia government, which for the most part was made up of western Virginian counties and met in Wheeling (after the formation of West Virginia as a state the restored government moved to Alexandria).

Another example of dividing a state would actually be Kentucky (from Virginia again), which was a county of Virginia, petitioned (and received) approval by state legislature to separate into its own state, and whose admission as a state was finally approved by Congress in 1791.

Of course, state borders have changed much more frequently, sometimes substantially, as in the case of Texas in 1850.

But as for the point as to whether there are similar examples of "durable" subnational entities like US states, as u/deezee72 notes, you would need to look to federations for the most part.

The case of Germany is interesting, because 1990 actually wasn't technically a major reorganization, but the avoidance of one. Article 146 of the (West) German Federal Republic's Basic Law provided that German states could reunify into one, but that this would require the writing of a new constitution. For a variety of reasons this was considered too impractical in 1990, so reunification actually proceeded according to which an individual German state (Land) could petition to join the existing Federal Republic under its Basic Law. This is what Saarland had done in 1957, and this path was kept open as a possibility for West Berlin, which technically was not part of the Federal Republic.

Ultimately what happened in fact was that the (East) German Democratic Republic, which had abolished states in 1952, re-established them in August 1990, while merging its part of Berlin with the Western part to form a new Land. Then the German Democratic Republic dissolved itself that October, and the individual states petitioned the Federal Republic to join, and were accepted. I can't really speak deeply on the constitutional aspects of combining or dividing German states really beyond this.

Another example would be the Russian Federation. While subnational entities in the Soviet-era Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic could be created, dissolved, or split off pretty much at will by the central Soviet authorities (for example the Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was dissolved and its population deported in 1941, while the Kazakh and Kyrgyz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics were made full-fledged Soviet Socialist Republics in 1936), the post-Soviet Russian Federation has had different (and changing) relations with its federal "subjects". For instance, 20 of the federal subjects are republics that had their relations defined by a 1992 Treaty of Federation with Moscow, although the new Russian constitution the following year fudged this by stating that all federal subjects had equal rights (until this time, the amended 1978 RSFSR constitution was still in effect). In any case, the relationship of federal subjects to both the central federal government and to each other has been complicated, to say the least: the Yeltsin presidency more or less dealt with each region according to special bilateral agreements, while the federal government under Putin moved to strengthen the center and standardize center-subject relations, in part by creating presidential plenopotentiaries operating out of federal "districts" (that aren't actually constitutionally provided for). In addition to this, certain federal subjects have been kinda-sorta administratively subject to other, bigger/more powerful subjects, often based off of the complicated nature of Soviet-era RSFSR administration. Still, this system as seen very few changes since the later Soviet decades, but with a few exceptions, such as Ingushetia splitting from Chechnya to form its own Republic in 1992, or a number of Siberian federal subjects being merged into bigger entities in 2005-2008.

In short, when subnational entities are constitutionally provided-for in a federation, they can be split or merged, and in the cases provided have been, but legally and institutionally it's a much more involved process than simply an internal administrative reorganization (which England or France theoretically could do whenever their national governments wanted to).

This isn't exactly an answer to your question, but what reorganisation in England are you talking about in 1994 and 2004?England is, in international law equivalent terms, a subnational entity, a "constituent country" that is one of four constituent parts of the United Kingdom (not counting Overseas Crown Territories, which is a whole other issue). The entities below England are counties, as the entities below US States are counties.

We of course refer to England, Wales and Scotland as "nations" but they are not independent governments, in the same ways that Americans refer to "states" that are not "states" as international law recognises, ie independent governments.

The four constituent countries have had their rights changed significantly over time, with more or less control from the central government, as well as changes to how the local governments are chosen. There were periods where for legal and legislative purposes, local rights in Wales were so small as to make the existence of Wales almost meaningless. Scotland, on the other hand, while its government has had more or less power over time, has always had a seperate legal system and state religion to other constituent parts of the UK and its predecessor, Great Britain.

But their borders, being based on the previous independent states (or, in Wales's case, multiple states), have never been changed or reorganised; Northern Ireland is sort of an exception, as most of Ireland became independent leaving just a rump remaining in the UK. However, the government has never split up that subnational entity themselves, reorganised it, etc.

To put this in American terms; from its birth in 1707, the United Kingdom had 3 "states" (4 from 1801). These "states" had low state rights compared to the US's constitution (they didn't even have their own legislatures for most of the period), and due to the nature of the UK's constitution their rights were individual and case-by-case, not the same for all "states". Central government has changed their rights significantly over time. However, the borders of these have never changed significantly, except for the secession of large parts of one of the four "states".

This isn't to say it's legally impossible for a government to abolish these states; we do, after all, have no constitution. It would be certainly be politically impossible, however.

(A note. Wales is a bit complicated than the other two, as from 1535 it was for all legal purposes part of England. In 1881 the first law that dealt exclusively with Wales was passed, followed by a number of others. It can also be argued that Monmouthshire was moved from England to Wales in the 1920s for legal purposes.
Essentially... every country is different, and how it deals with subnational entities are different, which makes equivalents a bit difficult.)

An example that has already been brought up is Germany. The 13 federal countries and the 3 city states form the Federal Republic of Germany.

The US is a Union of States whereas Germany is a federation of countries. That’s why the US president has more rights than the German chancellor but German ministers have more rights than US secretaries of government. The chancellor is the so called „first among equals“.

The Federation is called Bund (literally Federation) and the countries are Länder or Bundesländer (literally countries or Federal Countries). Then there are the three City States who Share equal rights with the countries but are differently organized.

The government is largely decentralized and has far less power than in the US, especially the executive part. Just a few things that aren’t ruled from Berlin are Education, Healthcare, Policing, Business Hours, Religious Holidays and Traffic signage.

Elementary school in Berlin is 2 years longer and middle school two years shorter than in Brandenburg, each country can decide their corona handlings, in some countries like Bavaria there is Zero Tolerance for weed whereas in Berlin you can possess more than 10 grams for private use, some counties have up to 10 open sundays a year whereas some only allow 4 and finally Bavaria has a ton of work free days on Christian occasions while Brandenburg has a free Reformation day and Berlin has none besides Easter, Christmas and Pentecost.

It really is confusing. Then some thing are under Federal rule. Crime and Punishment, General Traffic Law, the military, etc.

It is also constitutionally possible for a country to leave the Federation.