Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indonesia and Papua New Guinea

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia and Papua New Guinea

Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This doesn't fall under any clear CSD criteria, so I'm just punting it in here. There are articles on both countries, etc.; it looks like a new user putting their feet in the water, but I don't think it quite meets with the "test page" guidelines. Tyrenon (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete they're not like Baltic States, nor do they form a continent. any commonality should be treated in a bilateral relations article. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Keep as this is now Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations, clearly notable relations with sharing a boundary and West Papua issues. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, in its current form, while thanking the editor for his or her contribution. The editor appears to be a newcomer, that article being only their second edit. They should be made to feel welcome, encouraged to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia and to continue contributing. An article on bilateral relations between PNG and Indonesia would be most welcome (Indonesia is the only country bordering PNG, they share the New Guinean landmass, whose indigenous inhabitants have similar cultures, there have been occasional border controversies, and PNG has at times faced the issue of Indonesian refugees crossing over; PNG's position on the Free Papua Movement, which it does not openly support so as not to antagonise Indonesia, would also be relevent to note). But the article in its current form should, alas, clearly be deleted. Aridd (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Misguided attempt. The topic should be approached from the articles of each country (that is, find a logical place to expand discussion of relations with the other country). Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. No, actually, bilateral relations between PNG and Indonesia are clearly notable enough to warrant an article of their own (see above). But not in this form. The article we're voting on doesn't actually mention their relations. Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand about the proximity, and the potential importance of this case, and that an article of some kind is needed. I still think that the correct approach is via developing the articles of the countries involved. Certainly a list of arbitrary facts is not helpful, and this particular article is definitely misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep While this article needs a lot of additions, the matters specific to the Indonesian claims on New Guinea are real and significant, and definitely affect PNG as well. The fact of UNTEA intervention also impacts both nations. The article is almost worthless as is, however. [1] and other sources [2] indicates the concern of the Papuan people over Indonesian rule of "West Irian." This is, amazingly enough, worth fifty of the permutation bilateral relations articles. Collect (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please see my comment in response to Cdogsimmons below. Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No encyclopedic content here. It is just a random linking of two countries. (Where have I heard that that could lead to 20,000 robostubs?)Edison (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep (per Collect) and improve, which should be easy because these countries border each other. If I ever wanted an argument that these international relations articles were poorly researched before being nominated for deletion, I just found it. Here's an extensive third party source on the issue. [3] It was the first result on a google search for Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. I urge the nominator of this article (as well as those voicing a call to delete) to review the policies regarding Afds at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not disputing that there should be an article on bilateral relations between Indonesia and PNG. There definitely should be. There would be quite a lot of relevent material to put in such an article, as I indicated above. But the article in its current form is essentially worthless (no offence intended to its creator, who was making a laudable attempt to contribute). At best, it should be turned into a redirect once an article on PNG-Indonesia bilateral relations has been created. (Which I would create myself if I had time to go looking through all my collected data on the Pacific, but I haven't.) Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As has been discussed often before, it is not customary on Wikipedia to have articles titled "A and B" referring to two separate subjects, especially when each one is notable enough to have its own article. (This does not include cases when "A and B" is the actual title of something, refering to a single subject, e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina). But this article is more like writing one called USA and Canada. Countries are obviously notable enough to have articles. Since there is so little information in this article, and there is no way to fairly determine which country to redirect this title to, it makes better sense to transfer any good information to the articles on the respective countries, then delete the title. Sebwite (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You're actually quite right. This article should be moved to Indonesia-Papua New Guinea relations]]. That's what I think the creator meant. No need to delete. Just move.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment intriguing how it brings out the bilateral relations warring parties - a 2 line edit by a 2 edit new user :) and how long it took for someone to add the Indonesian project (btw fellow eds there is a Papua New Guinea project too) - what a brilliant red rag for you all - as an Indonesian project ed with many of the Papua New Guinea articles on watch I am intrigued by the general conversation above SatuSuro 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and Expand it could be a very useful link into the maze of current Papaua New Guinea and Western Papua articles SatuSuro 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this would be better served in an article of the Malay archipelago or Indonesian archipelago or Australasian archipelago and Wallacea 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, move to Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations and improve The article is awful, but these countries share a long border and it should be possible to write something worthwhile on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to New Guinea There is not much here but I guess the author was making the point that Indonesia and PNG are the political entities on the island of New Guinea. This is already well covered in the New Guinea article
• Keep and expand. Retitle to r=Relationship between Indonesia and New Guinea. considering that the existing title could be used as a starting point, it seem like going through unnecessary hoops to go to the work of deleting it, when it just need be added to.
• Keep Two nations that share a border, and have killed over that border in recent times, is notable. Dream Focus 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the article originally nominated has been renamed Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations. This is confusing, people are debating if Indonesia and Papua New Guinea should exist...which is now Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep nominator is not exist for a deletion, they have a strong relationship and neighboring nations like France and Germany and Australia and New Zealand. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Suspend AFDs, DRVs, and creations of X-Y relations articles. The discussions are driving people into entrenched positions from which few are willing to retreat at risk of losing face. The current situation of having discussions decided based on how many from each side show up, followed by automatic DRVs because of disagreeing with the closure (and that is what's happening) is poisoning any remaining relationships between each side, and putting at risk any chance of coming to an agreed position. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep no need to suspend nothing. This article really, really sucked when it was nominated. And it still kind of sucks. But this is one of those clearly notable bilateral relationships (i would argue this is one of only 4 such for PNG, but that's another matter). I doubt anyone with the language skills to do a job on this will bother (i sure won't).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as they border each other and therefore have a notable relationship for which I even have discovered serves as the subject of at least one thesis (I have noted this work in the article). Bravo to everyone who has helped improve this article rather than only comment in the AfD. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, surprise, I said keep. Most of these "relationship" articles are filler. This one actually makes sense. It needs help, but the countries have a notable relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to New Guinea. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:10, 11 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.