Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Spain relations

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. Here the arguments to retain ranged from there being little information because the realtionship is young (which suggests supporting the postion of those seeking the article's deletion), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "it's just notable" with some spurious and unspecified notability standard that is apparently below WP:N. These are not valid arguments for retention. I must comment, however, and say that I share DGG's apparent frustration that these things are still coming to AfD at all whilst there are ongoing efforts to merge the material to more suitable locations. What we end up with is inconsistency, where some of these are kept and some deleted - in this case, consensus favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Spain relations

Azerbaijan–Spain relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

significant lack of coverage of these 2 nations relations except on the football and hockey field. [1]. A search of the Azerbaijan foreign ministry reveals close to nothing on Spain. Existence of embassy is already covered in List of diplomatic missions of Azerbaijan. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia ia not a mirror of the website of some country's foreign ministry, listing an article for each country the "have relations with." Fails WP:N as well. Edison (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The creator of this article User:Brandmeister has not been notified by User:LibStar of this Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete who cares? They should be embarrased about creating an article with no reliable sources independent of the subject. I can find no reliable sources that discuss this topic, that is this bilateral relationship, and that it makes a clear fail of the notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The diplomatic relations are young, but I am inclined to keep (see for example "Friends of Azerbaijan Society" in Madrid, the Azerbaijan-Spain working group on interparliamentary relations or the Agreement between Azerbaijan University of Languages and the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Once the topic becomes more informative, it may be submitted for undeletion though. brandt 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per Brandmeister. I also found an internet source showing that bilateral relations exist between the two countries [2]. Develop, don't delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

that's a primary source. all nice "we will cooperate" type statements but how about some decent trade or perhaps trade agreements? LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete It feels dickish to do cite large chunks of WP:N in an AfD, but it also seems increasingly necessary, so here goes:

“

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

”

I see no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"--not in anything cited in the article or used as an WP:EL, nor in my own searches of the wider internet--therefore WP should not have on article on the topic of Azerbaijan–Spain relations. (Note: If someone can dig up sources that establish notability as defined above I'd not hesitate to change my !vote to !keep). The actual facts discussed in this article could be covered in WP--perhaps at Foreign relations of Spain and/or Foreign relations of Azerbaijan--just not in a standalone article. And primary/non-independent sources are fine for verifying those facts, just not for establishing notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia but an almanac and a gazetteer. Almanac and gazetteer entries don't have the same standard for notability as, say, a biography. While my grandmom wouldn't meet the notability standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia portion, every township is included in the gazetteer portion. All almanac entries should be included too. Almanac entries and gazetteer entries are Wikipedia Pillars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Hans Adler has explained that while numerous relations exist, many are not notable and are not suitable for an encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, if this article is to be deleted, then why there is Armenia–Spain_relations with similar content and no references? Why double standards? Atabəy (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments should be avoided. the above argument does not address in anyway how WP:N is met. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep with the current additions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is flimsy and needs improvement, but I see no valid reason for deleting it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the trade relations alone are notable. The other stuff exists fora good reason: the relationship between any two states that have sufficient trading and other connections to be worth the exchange of ambassadors is in fact notable. That these articles were introduced foolishly does not been the deletion is justified, just that we have a lot of work to do. of course, we can eliminate the need to work by rejecting all articles that are't perfect when first submitted.... . I wonder too why the community has not seen that having essentially the same full scale debate hundreds of times over is about as unproductive a use of erffort andtime as possible, and the worst possible way to go about building an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the embassies' presence is already documented. Several of the sources used are not independent, and thus breach WP:GNG. That Azerbaijan attended a NATO summit in Madrid has about zero to do with "Azerbaijan–Spain relations"; obviously, the meeting could have been held in any NATO capital. Let's stop cramming trivial articles with trivia about trivia, and instead focus on subjects that have been covered by outside parties, as opposed to a handful of Wikipedians. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no restriction against using autobiographies or other dependent media for verifiability. A self published biography may not make you notable, but it is verifiable. The Obama article uses his autobiography extensively. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete only 17 years, with a handful of mundane agreements and treaties that most countries establish with each other over time, and a few figures regarding trade that probably doesn't amount to a lot that would make people sit up and take notice. No coverage of the topic as a whole or their significance in world affairs is documented. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Just so it's on the record--I've been watching this article evolve since nominated for deletion, and I feel my concerns raised above are still unaddressed. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Have done likewise and concur. In fact, these misguided "rescue" attempts lead to a worse article than the one originally nomed, since it amounts to a group of disparate "citations" that don't address the topic of the article, but are dressed up as if they address the topic of the article (or, in other cases, are primary etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

agree with the above 2 comments, edits like this [3], reflect desperate attempts to put anything in the article as long as it mentions the 2 countries. LibStar (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Another random collection of facts with no evidence of a noteworthy relationship. Similar articles, such as New Zealand-Pakistani relations, have been deleted within the past 24 hours, so right now there seems to be consensus for deleting a lot of these X-and-Y articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A chance for creative users to come up with colorful maps and copy-pastes of random non-notable events, but utterly non-notable as a topic. Dahn (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2009 (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.