Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sovereign states with affairs controled by others


 * 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   merge to Associated state. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

List of sovereign states with affairs controled by others

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Ridiculous topic. Pure original research. Inclusion criteria will always be hazy. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not original research, but some sources would be useful. Eventhough the information are already on other pages, I thought putting it togheter on a list would be useful - not all of this countries are nominated associated, for instance. Maybe linking the Associated state page with it would be better than the opposite. Regards.Gvogas (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A "state whose (diplomatic and defence) affairs is controlled by others" is formally known as an associated state. See ISBN 9780742500099 page 31. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I misunderstood the nature of the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Associated state. All of the info in this article is already there. Wolfview (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Associated state. The content appears to already be there, but I actually think the table is a useful way of presenting the data. VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with VQuakr. Even the information being on the article, the table is very useful. In addition, not all these states are known as associated.187.36.142.110 (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Associated state - this table would be useful once sourced, but I can't see it standing as an independent article. Claritas § 12:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem with that. Wolfview (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading this, I'm convinced and agree that merge to Associated state would be a better option.Gvogas (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Merge to Associated state appears the best option.187.59.235.200 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the nominators view that this is a ridiculous topic, since it is obviously encyclopedic. Keep or merge with the other article if its not seen as making it too long.   D r e a m Focus  00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   chat 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by anonymous IP 32.174.83.114 in seeking assistance with its improvement.  05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Associated state per WP:CFORK.   Snotty Wong   chat 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Associated states are a wholly different animal. Merging these two topics will create more trouble than it's worth. Ladril (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Associated state. With the proper hierarchy on the list (that already exist on the article - which states are in formal association, wich are in comparable relationships), the table can be clear and useful - and even expanded for the non-sovereign associated states as Niue and Cook Islands.Zé Carioca (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.