Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands[edit]

Do we actually need this article? It has no information in it not already stated in the Falklands article. It appears to have been abandoned by it's author with no one else showing interest in it, in the past year the only edits made to it have been grammatical and wikilinking. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to the existing Falklands article, not even worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign Relations of the United Kingdom Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might have been relevant had it been expanded, it merely duplicates information found elsewhere. Justin talk 10:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as anyone educated knows, the Falklands are technically not part of the UK. The islands have foreign relations in stuff like fishing rights etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is certainly true (they are a UK Overseas Territory) but there is a Falklands article and this article is redundant to it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content easily accomodated in the main article, relations with the UK has nothing to do with it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as Comment: I think this has potential. I can see why people want to delete. As it is, this is a placeholder article with nothing but duplicate information - and it doesn't look like it's going to move on from that any time soon. Plus the fact that the Falklands have no formal foreign relations as that's the responsibility of the UK. But this article still has a use, I think, in discussing treaties as they apply to the Falklands (EU treaties, landmines, natural resources, fishing rights and so on), and in discussing cultural relations (sport, language teaching and so on). Our deadline's a long way off, so this can come in time. Pfainuk talk 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Know what your saying mate, I was quite keen on reading this article when I first saw it's name, I expected it to be similar to what you just described. Lets boot it for now (as it brings the whole project down) and when someone's willing to make it then we can start it again. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has added any such information yet, and this being merged with FI wouldn't stop them from doing so either. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "interested neutral". Given that I have neither the time nor the sources to do the needed improvements during this AFD, here's what I mean my this:

On principle, articles on encycolpaedic subjects - and I think this is one - should not be deleted but rather improved. But this particular article is of no net benefit to the encyclopaedia and has not been significantly edited in the 14 months since it was created. I wonder if, if it became a redlink (so, not a redirect), it might be a spur for people to create the page, given that it's included on a template and there'll be a link to this discussion on the edit window. A sort of "tough love" strategy.

Merging is a non-issue as there's nothing to merge. Redirecting I oppose as it wouldn't create the redlink needed for this strategy to work. Pfainuk talk 13:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I too agree that if it's a red link it may garner more attention. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be part of Falkland Islands --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Black ngold29 06:39, 29 July 2008 (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.