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 Delete all, Nakon 03:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands[edit]

Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I recently nominated foreign relations of French Guiana for deletion on the basis that French Guiana has no foreign relations, since it is an integral part of France. Someone suggested that I nominate other articles of this type for deletion, and so I looked around and found that another one of them, for the Falkland Islands, was deleted in 2008, but several others still exist, which I am nominating for deletion:

• Foreign relations of Aruba - Has no foreign relations, they are managed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands
• Foreign relations of the Netherlands Antilles - Ditto, plus the Netherland Antilles no longer exist
• Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - Uninhabited

As far as I can tell, all the other foreign relations articles for dependent territories linked to in the foreign relations navigation templates are redirects (for example, foreign relations of Gibraltar redirects to disputed status of Gibraltar, and foreign relations of Åland to foreign relations of Finland), except in a few cases where the existence of these articles is justified, namely for Hong Kong, Macau, Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. Unlike those, which are well-developed articles with lots of sources, the three I'm nominating are nearly empty, and there is no reason for them to exist. Territorial disputes do not justify the existence of an international relations page; if they did, there would need to be a foreign relations of Jammu and Kashmir.  Liam987(talk) 16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Netherlands Antilles article (which all but says the territory had no international relations) and especially the South Georgia one (the idea of an uninhabited territory having international relations is ludicrous). Neutral on Aruba: although it is still part of the Netherlands, it apparently does have some measure of international autonomy, and is an associate member (but not a full member) of the Association of Caribbean States on its own merits, separate from the similar status of its parent country (which represents several of the other Dutch holdings in the Caribbean for the organization). Of course, the current article doesn't even get that right, so an argument for blowing the whole mess up is also plausible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says at Association of Caribbean States (which could be wrong; not going to bother to look on their website right now) that the Netherlands and France are associate members "on behalf of" their dependencies.  Liam987(talk) 22:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ACS treats the Netherlands as an associate member "on behalf of" Bonaire, Saba, and Saint Eustatius, and France similarly regarding French Guiana, Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin. However, the ACS considers several other territories, including Aruba to be Associate Members in their own right, and lists Aruba as one of the signatories of its establishing convention. Similarly, the ACS's entry for Aruba lists the local Prime Minister as head of state. I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's sufficient for retention, though. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Jesus Christ, do I loathe these inane articles that exist just because someone thinks that every rock, atoll and patch of dirt ought to have a "Foreign Relations of ..." article. Sorta like the "Scouting in the Vatican City" article, concerning a country that doesn't have any Scout-age citizens, never has since the Boy Scouts were founded, and never will. Honestly, I think this is a WP:BULLSHIT deal if anything. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all none of these are sovereign countries, their foreign relations are controlled by their "parent" country. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the foreign relations of SGSSI per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands. They have the same situation as the Falklands, but there is an even stronger case for their deletion due to the fact that they are uninhabited. The other two are more complicated. I'd like to mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlands Antilles – United States relations, due to the fact that both of them still have ___-US relations articles. If both of these are deleted, then the United States' relations articles should probably be renominated. Tavix |  Talk  19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba articles. They have autonomy regarding lots of of items and do(did) discuss on a 1:1 basis with the US. A thing they can't is formally conclude treaties, although they do negotiate about those items under their control (tax policy, air traffic, entry into the country, but ironically not visa policy). The article could do a lot more than it does at the moment in explaining that... L.tak (talk)

Relist comment: While there seems to be clear consensus to delete Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, there appears to be no consensus yet on Foreign relations of Aruba and Foreign relations of the Netherlands Antilles. I am relisting in the hope that a clearer consensus may be achieved on all three.--MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all The only one that has even the slightest reason for being is the Aruba article, and really, there's no need for a separate article just to hold a couple of sentences which would live perfectly well in the main article's politics section. Seyasirt (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except for the Neth. Antilles. The territories in question have little autonomy except issuing postage stamps, but I've been to the Dutch colonial Caribbean, and they have quite a bit of autonomy. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete them all, including those a few other editors want to keep. Is there *any* useful information in *any* of these? (If so, why not put it -- all one sentence that it might be -- somewhere people will actually find it?) <waves pom-poms at Nha Trang; you go, girl-or-guy!> Pax 08:47, 2 March 2015 (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.