Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howland and Baker 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 11:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howland and Baker islands

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

This is weird one. Yes, Howard Island and Baker Island, both pass WP:NGEO alone and that's why we have an article on each of them. However, I don't understand why an article exists on the two of them together, it seems to be very redundant (everything is already covered in the separate articles). The only thing that really does link the islands together is an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). But there really isn't anything to say about the EEZ since the islands are uninhabited, there is very little economic activity going on there. The article was previously nominated for deletion and kept several years ago. That discussion didn't really get much participation and the nominator withdrew (probably due to his/her frustration with Unscintillating). A few weeks ago an ip address wanted to nominate for deletion again, but no one ever followed through on it. Rusf10 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of the zone is enougt to justify them as a legal entity. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there's only a few sentences about the zone. And there's really nothing more to write about economic activity on two uninhabited islands. The rest of the article contains information covered elsewhere.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments expressed by DGG above. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this pair is a distinctive unit in US Minor Outlying Islands, and also referenced as this pair in various standards (not just the EEZ). It does not mean that each island may have their own geographical/natural/geological article, but politically and administratively they are in the same group (and probably as well in the same history and the same applicable international treaties, unless there are very specific events related to one of the islands only, such as ship wreckages, volcanic events, local aerodromes, local researches/explorations...). We can avoid the duplication of contents by sorting it correctly either for the geopolical group, or more locally to one od the islands. verdy_p (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2018 (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.