Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) 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. NW (Talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

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

Duplicates Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Cocos Islands only have 600 occupants. They are tiny (the islands, not the inhabitants). Most of these redlinks will never have - or warrant - articles - who is going to write an entire article on Population of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Even if you wrote every name out in full it still wouldn't make enough material for an article. Pointless. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete with haste aplenty. Absolutely no reason for an outline. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and per the larger discussions at WP:VPP#Scope of "Outline" articles and User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft and elsewhere. All (28) relevant articles are already included at Category:Cocos (Keeling) Islands. A navbox template might be warranted, but this outline won't particularly aid in its creation. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I resereve the right to change my mind if someone writes FA-class Glaciers of the Cocos Islands. NVO (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independently notable and serves no useful purpose for any other article (or indeed for any user). Hans Adler 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a little bit of a duplicate of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. There are no articles about outlines of countries on Wikipedia. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically a duplicate of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. However, I would not be so quick to dispute the potential of a Population of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands article and some of the other sub-articles. How the population made their way to the islands and the current ethnic and linguistic status of the islands' population is more complex than it perhaps looks at first. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously no objection if someone can produce an article on the population, I was being a bit flip, but Fjords of the Cocos Islands? Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe their parrots were pining... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is part of a series of topical outlines for all countries and dependent territories included in ISO 3166-1. Just because a territory is not extensive or populous does not mean it should automatically be deleted. If the International Organization for Standardization thinks the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are significant, I think Wikipedia should too. Most of the red links should be removed, but the article should definitely be retained. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am not saying that the Cocos Islands are not notable. We already have 28 perfectly respectable articles on the Cocos Islands including Cocos (Keeling) Islands which says it all already. What we don't need is this nonsense.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Quiddity's reasoning. Minnecologies (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buaidh. Part of the wider Outline of Knowledge - Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously unnecessary given the tiny size of the islands and their population. The red links to Fjords of the Cocos Islands, Glaciers of the Cocos Islands, Cities of the Cocos Islands, Army of the Cocos Islands, etc, are entertaining though. Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hobgoblin consistency. Abductive (reasoning) 06:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half list, half category. Already have Category:Cocos (Keeling) Islands for an outline, and Cocos (Keeling) Islands for a reader's start. Nageh (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and strong delete - as said before exact replica or close to as Cocos (Keeling) Islands Whenaxis (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issues are the same as at Islam in the Pitcairn Islands from some time back. Orderinchaos 13:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Duplicate outline that provides no helpful information and should be combined with the main article. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2010 (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.