Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Luxembourg 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Latvia–Luxembourg relations

Latvia–Luxembourg relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

another random combination with no resident embassies. only 2 minor bilateral agreements [1]. almost all coverage is in a multilateral context, [2] or a recent football match between the 2 countries [3] and [4]. only multilateral coverage in French search. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Permutation and combination again. Collect (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Robostub showing that there are lots of combinations (20,000 or so) of 208 nations taken 2 at a time. Fails WP:N and not a directory. Edison (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The countries have bilateral agreements in force which have been reliably sourced. Not that multilateral relations should just be discounted. What do people exactly think isn't notable about these relations?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

They are 2 minor agreements (eg Mutual Protection of Classified Information) that unless covered widely in the media do not make a for notable relations. A relationship does not automatically mean notable relations for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The relations of these two nations have been significantly covered by independent media (the BBC) evidenced by the sources in the article. [5] [6] [7]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep because if the signed bilateral agreements. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

precedent has shown simply having 2 minor agreements does not mean notable relations. do you have evidence of significant coverage of their relations? LibStar (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which precedent? If it actually exists it should be reconsidered. Independently sourced references to bilateral treaties should clearly support a finding of notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of what? Items that one Wikipedia editor tells us are relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether - a synthesis, in other words? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep They have a clear reference from a very notable and reliable source, about what that source refers to as a bilateral agreement between the nations. [8] What better source could you find? Dream Focus 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

2 quite minor agreements from a primary source is hardly a basis for a bilateral relations article. have you found any significant coverage from independent sources that would meet WP:N? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete since no reliable independent sources have judged this topic, that is, this bilateral relationship, to be worthy of coverage in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. May I suggest "keep" voters review WP:GNG, which requires sources "independent of the subject"? And that taking two primary-source documents and proclaiming "notable relationship!" blatantly violates WP:PSTS? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sources from the BBC on this article. They are clearly independent and indicate a notable relationship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not quite: what those sources address is something which one Wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether - ie, a synthesis. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Mere existence of bilateral agreements does not automatically make those countries' bilateral relations notable.It takes sources to do that and there aren't any in this case. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Almanac entries almost always rely on government website entries in Wikipedia. Every SCOTUS case is directly piped in from the SCOTUS website, the same for townships from the census data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• You are confusing WP:V with WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that is always true, primary sources can be used to verify information but not to establish notability. Please review the guidelines that reflect community consensus. Drawn Some (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are inherently flexible, and the GNG goes out of its way to repeatedly emphasise the fact. I think it particularly inapplicable to this sort of "relationship" topic. If they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia , by including subjects where there is a good deal of material, we ought to judge accordingly. The only reason WP:N still has consensus as a guideline is that there has been an agreement that we need some rules for the general purpose, and we have never had agreement on something to replace it. I think it obvious from the discussions that the last few months at AfD that the GNG would never have obtained sufficient consensus if now suggested as a new proposal, especially if proposed as applicable to all types of articles. So many exceptions would be raised as to prevent the necessary agreement. DGG (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're essentially saying WP:IAR, which isn't a very convincing argument. W/R/T the GNGs, they're there, inter alia, to guard against WP:OR/WP:SYN. If a topic hasn't been covered in secondary sources, it's going to be very hard--perhaps impossible--to write a neutral encyclopedia article on the topic and to avoid original research. So the GNGs basically say, don't write articles on topics for which only primary sources exist. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A government website is a secondary source when discussing the signing of a treaty. The text of the treaty itself is the primary source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it is an independent source? According to WP:N, that's what's needed to establish notability: 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. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We recognize inherent notability in almanac and gazetteer entries. In almanacs and gazetteers the information just needs to be verifiable. Anyway the information stays in Wikipedia even when the articles are deleted. We are only debating whether they deserve their own article space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I am going to say keep. It has bilateral treaties and diplomatic meetings that meet the requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

do I expect any different? still lacks wide independent coverage for notability, more than 1 BBC article from 2000. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And why should your personal opinion of what constitutes notability ("bilateral treaties and diplomatic meetings") be of any account, as opposed to significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources - a standard applied across Wikipedia? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It has never been a standard across Wikipedia. We recognize inherent notability in almanac and gazetteer entries. Notability for biographies in the encyclopedia portion requires a litmus test of notability. In almanacs and gazetteers the information just needs to be verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy on Notability says "significant" coverage not "wide" coverage. "'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." WP:N The BBC's coverage (sourced on the page) of a topic is adequate to indicate significance. Appeals to made-up policies should be disregarded.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is not a made-up policy; the BBC doesn't discuss something as such, but rather something which one Wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear about what you're talking about. Are you saying that it's original research to say a bilateral agreement between nations indicates an international relationship?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable topic for an article due to lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Should be completely deleted with no merge or redirect. The random unimportant information included by people trying to save the article constitute WP:SYNTHESIS at best. Drawn Some (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as above: no notable coverage. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There is a mistaken view that these articles deal with diplomatic relations primarily. Commercial relations count too, especially as throughout history they have been the reason for the establishment of diplomatic relations first as consulates, and then upgraded as other aspects of political involvement increases. Any non-sporadic commerce or investment is sufficient to make these notable: they build a web, a concept that should be familiar here. DGG (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If this articles aren't about relations between states then what are they about, DGG? You seem to be propsing renaming to All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in nations x and y. Where are the sources?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

sure they're about relations, which includes all of economic, political diplomatic , and cultural relations in this case, and in many others military ones as well. DGG (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, just the ones reported in reliable media, after all it is Latvia–Luxembourg relations. Relations cover all those topics, and they are notable when covered by reliable media. A private German citizen flying a single engine plane and landing in Red Square should be covered in Wikipedia in German - Russia relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If I were to marry a Grand Fenwickian and our marriage were announced in my local newspaper (let's say, for this example, the West Windsor & Plainsboro News), would that be relevent to US-Grand Fenwickian relations? Could I get in wikipedia!?! This is just beyond. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum isn't a helpful argument. We all learned that in Junior High School. For instance in Wikipedia all townships are notable, but not all houses are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we are equally aware of the limits of extrapolation: in this case, it is not something inherent we're discussing (i.e. something covered as such), but something which one wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he or she may have invented altogether. in other words, it's a personal synthesis. There is also an obvious slippery slope in including all sort of info in such articles: not only does it make the articles look ridiculous, it exposes the absurdity of "rescue" attempts, whose transparent goal is not to inform about something notable, but to make something of no consequence look relevant.

What's more, who in hell would even think of replicating this level of trivia in articles that cover more significant topics, where immediately relevant info on immediately relevant phenomenons is in abundance? Of course, that's provided one cares about maintaining an encyclopedic character, and not primarily about making experimental topics such as this one look relevant by means of hot air.

It's always an issue of "positive discrimination", for some visionary rationale that eludes scrutiny. To paraphrase Bali above: we are not only asked to tolerate All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in Latvia and Luxembourg as a valid topic (when it's not even a workable topic); we are also led to believe that this only works for small countries, or for relations where there isn't much to say on a relevant, diplomatic, level. Supposedly "there is a mistaken view that these articles deal with diplomatic relations primarily" (the "primarily" here is especially intriguing, since it makes the phrase conveniently ambiguous). Fine then, let's go with that assumption. But can you imagine what it would entail for All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in Canada and the United States, or for All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in France and the United Kingdom? Dahn (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

When the media takes notice it becomes notable by Wikipedia definition. And again please don't use the Reduction to absurdity argument, it isn't valid argument. Please stick to Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"When the media takes notice it becomes notable by Wikipedia definition." - absolutely not, as I'm sure you know. There are plenty of subjects that will not ever be even mentioned, let alone transformed into separate topics, on wikipedia, even if they were covered by the press. The exact difference between some media coverage and the stuff of wikipedia articles is carefully outlined by WP:N, WP:NOT etc. And, again, coverage of random topics which an editorial voice (of a wikipedia editor) ties together into a single subject is not the same as the subject having received coverage in the press. It may be an essay, an illustration of one's creativity, a piece of journalism, a press review, a prank, the result ofthis AfD being wrongfully seen as a dare... but it is not a wikipedia article. Dahn (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Article is simply a list of 15 isolated facts. There is no source with an analysis showing that the relations are in some way notable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly cite some Wikipedia policy? This isn't a vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Random, non-encyclopedic, not based on any analysis other than the editorializing of a wikipedia editor. The text prioritizes ridiculously trivial topics for the sake of making itself look better, proving in itself that the topic is simply not worth a separate article. Dahn (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All topics are covered in the article on international relations. Please stick to issues of notability and verifiability, this isn't a vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What? Dahn (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you've done it Dahn. You've been added to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists. It's like your very own scarlet letter (actually a poisining the well exercise, but whatever).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

At least I'm in good company. Dahn (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Pakistan relations: random facts to throw together, but no sources proving that the relations between these two countries are a notable area of inquiry in anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:58, 6 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.