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.
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
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
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 TrangAllons!18:48, 19 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)
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!>
Pax08:47, 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.
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.
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
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
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 TrangAllons!18:48, 19 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)
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!>
Pax08:47, 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.