Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT rights in Antarctica

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. Sandstein 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Antarctica

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

Extremely silly article with no encyclopedic need to exist. Antarctica is a landmass whose only permanent residents are animals, so what this really does is list the state of LGBT rights in the mainlands of the countries that happen to have territorial claims on it. ("Adoption by same-sex couples"? Who is a queer scientist on a six-month research expedition going to adopt there, a penguin?) No prejudice against recreation in 2050 or beyond, when global warming has melted the ice caps and people are moving to Antarctica because whatever land is left there has actually become habitable, but as of right now the state of LGBT rights in Antarctica is strictly sophistry of no practical significance. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real encyclopedic need to exist. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not properly formatted as per Wikipedia guidelines; it is also somewhat overkill.TH1980 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Extremely silly indeed, but I haven't yet spotted a reason for deletion. Thincat (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in a landmass with no resident human population = topic that doesn't really exist. That's not reason enough? Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a person does not need to be a resident to have rights and it looks as if the rights of these people are (generally?) the same as in the countries (potentially) claiming sovereignty. I think it's a "real" topic but maybe one not written about elsewhere as a whole and maybe not worth documenting per se. Vaguely similar was this AFD, its DRV and RFC, then WP:AN discussion and move. Was it all worth it? Thincat (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think article 8 of the Antarctic Treaty System covers all that is necessary (residents come under the jurisdiction of their respective countries). This is about as relevant as Criminal law on Mars or Ethical behavior of Donald Trump. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A stricter (and more pedantic) title would be "List of LGBT rights in the sovereign states with territorial claims in Antarctica" and I suspect the overall topic of the list has not been written about in reliable sources, nor is there evidence that legal rights are determined by the state with the territorial claim. The case of the possible murder of Rodney Marks, an Australian citizen in NZ territory at a US base[1] indicates the uncertainty of the legal situation. Fascinating. Thincat (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question So where would one put British Antarctic Territory? South America perhaps? See notes 17 & 18 - "The Marriage Ordinance 2016" (PDF). Retrieved 10 May 2017.

Jump up ^ "Review of British Antarctic Territory legislation: changes to the marriage and registration ordinances - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 10 May 2017. - or would people rather this was included at all either? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very fair question. So far as I can see the BAT marriage law follows English law but in principle it might not.[2] However, where there are significant differences they would be well worth noting in British Antarctic Territory rather than burying in this list. I'm ignorant- are there other states that potentially apply different law in the Antarctic areas they claim? It seems to me it would be far more helpful to readers to discuss (not in list form) where such differences arise and what the differences are. I would be interested to see Law in Antarctica with, if appropriate, LBGT issues spun out but since the broad topic doesn't seem to be covered I would certainly not oppose a specific article. Thincat (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2017 (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.