Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 17 December 2010

Canada–Tonga relations

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

much of the article is a direct copyright violation from [1]. no real significant relations, applying WP:BEFORE most of the coverage relates to rugby matches [2]. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Redirect into Foreign relations of Canada and Foreign relations of Tonga. No reason to delete completely - info can be cut down and cited later, but I don't see enough here for a stand alone article. Agree with nom. Outback the koala (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the new sources Treasury has found. With these added to the article, I believe there is now enough for a stand alone article here. I will personally help rewrite the article to help include these sources once we can edit after the copyvio thing is cleared up. The template there says not to edit the page, but if we rewrite the page completely does that apply still? Anyone know? Outback the koala (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have you looked at treasury's articles, they are not indepth. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have you looked at treasury's articles – I would tend to assume that he has... ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to find the books linked to, but I am coming up short so far - so I have not read them, although since Treasury has, I'm sure he can tell you more about them. I assume in good faith that he has the books and they say what he says they say. Of course I looked at all the links provided. He provided substantial material that he says provides clear sourcing for the subject. Why can't we accept that he has these books? Is it so hard to believe another editor? These are sources on the subject of the article, why would he lie? Outback the koala (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question the books mention something, but is it indepth? I am seeking more information on depth of coverage, the freely available links are not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's fair. I don't know myself what is included in the sources since I cannot read them right now. I want to hear from Treasury also since he read them and has brought them forward to us. It stands to reason noone would suggest a source he has not read; so he if the man to ask for more details, but I'm sure that there is enough coverage that it is not trivial. Outback the koala (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to rewrite the article without infringing material, follow the instructions on the copyvio template. Use the link there to create a temporary subpage where the new article can be constructed. If the revised version eliminates the copyvio problem, an administrator will replace the old page with the new subpage. For discussion purposes here, you can always direct people to the subpage revision. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—if it is a copyright violation then it is easy to fix. This appears to have some relevance. Google Scholar seems to suggest that this covers the topic a bit, but I can't find an online copy. This relates to Tongan dialogue with Canada. This seems very much germane. This touches on the subject. This sheds some light on the trade and financial relationship between the two countries. I've read this article, which covers extradition arrangements between the states.
I could go on.
Basically, name-checking WP:BEFORE in an XfD nomination is not actually a substitute for doing proper research on the topic. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 10:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it seems like you are grasping at straws here. None of those sources have anything substantial to say about the relations. The first couple have just a mention of Canada and no content on the topic. I support bilateral relations articles wholeheartedly, but lets not be ridiculous about it.--TM 14:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree wholeheartedly with TM, the supplied links by treasury are not indepth ~~or cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase.~~ This makes one very small mention of Tongans migrating to Canada amongst other countries. this makes a tiny mention of Canada in its footnote. this is hardly indepth coverage of bilateral relations. this is another tiny mention in one whole book. clutching at straws to say a real notable relationship exists. clutching at straws indeed. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the supplied links by treasury [...] cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase – I wasn't aware that Wikipedia only accepted sources which were readable gratis by anyone with an Internet connection. I was under the impression that articles in published books and academic journals are considered adequate. Am I wrong? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on this point requested. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can quite see how articles about extradition treaties between the two states are insubstantial... </sarcasm> ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there is no need for sarcasm. This is a discussion and your attempts to belittle my point of view are not appreciated nor appropriate. If your incivility in AfD continues (as I watched you and another editor both engage in such actions at a previous AfD) your actions will be reported elsewhere. Secondly, you presented a link to an academic journal discussing Canada's extradition treaties all over the world, not just Tonga. Moreover, we do not know what is in the journal article and how substantial or trivial it is. Third, you act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not. In fact, most of the articles do not cover anything that has to do with the topic. AfD's are not WP:BATTLEGROUNDs but places for discussion; not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy.--TM 14:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, this is one of those spectacular comments which I get to analyse in detail:
First off, there is no need for sarcasm. People quite often do things which aren't strictly necessary, such as doing anything which is not eating, drinking or sleeping.

This is a discussion and your attempts to belittle my point of view are not appreciated nor appropriate. I'm not attempting to belittle your point of view. This is a discussion, and I am entitled to express my disagreement with your position using a rhetorical device of my choice.

If your incivility in AfD continues your actions will be reported elsewhere. Well, obviously elswhere: reporting them here would be rather pointless. And if you wish to report me for "incivil" mild sarcasm, then go ahead, see if I give a dolphin.

Secondly, you presented a link to an academic journal discussing Canada's extradition treaties all over the world, not just Tonga. I know I did, but thanks for the reminder. I am not familiar with any Wikipedia guideline stating that any reference must be soley concerned with a single subject. (It is quite common for articles about, say, individual British Prime Ministers to contain references from books about British Prime Ministers generally. This is permissible because – obviously – sources which cover a number of topics are perfectly capable of going into detail.)

Third, you act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not. I think they are significant. You claim that they are not, but have provided no rationale for that position, so it's rather difficult for me to discuss this point.

In fact, most of the articles do not cover anything that has to do with the topic. Really? So you think this is my scam, I trot about filling AfDs up with randomly-selected sources? :P The references I have listed (which, incidentally, convinced another editor to change their !vote) clearly pertain to Candian-Tonganese relations, and it is, frankly, bizarre to claim otherwise.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Mmm.

╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Outback. There really does not seem to be any significant relationship between the two states. Treasury, can you find how much aid Tonga receives from Canada? If it is one of its major donors, then I would definitely change my opinion. According to CIA.gov, Canada is not one of the leading import-exporters to/from Tonga.[3] I wish people would work to increase truly viable bilateral relations articles which are missing; for example, China-Tonga relations would make a fine article. Come on people, stop making lame bilateral relations articles when so many really useful ones are waiting.--TM 13:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am sorry, but since this article is a blatant copyright violation, I have templated the page per our requirements at WP:CV. Editors interested in rewriting an article without infringing text can rebuild the article using the "temporary subpage" link on the template. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury, and look at this: [4] Merge and redirect Oops, the source i found was Australia not Canada... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetyal (talk • contribs)
Comment WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So the argument "cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase" is irrelevant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my comment relates to whether or not we can verify how it contributes to Canada Tonga relations. Does this book include substantial coverage of Canadian relations? Does this actually cover relations in depth. almost of this coverage only touches the subject and does not treat it in depth. most of it can be inserted into Foreign relations of Tonga. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unable to read a source which another editor asserts is relevant, then what a normal person would do is to ask for an emailed copy, maybe. Or you could head over to the Resource Exchange and ask there.
But discounting it because you happen not to have access is completely unacceptable. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discounting it but it doesn't have a chapter or title on "Canada Tonga relations"? we can't assume indepth coverage of these sources. where is the evidence it covers "Canada Tonga relations" substantially? LibStar (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please list the sections that specifically explain in detail "Canada Tonga relations". thanks. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do you agree that the readily accessible links you supplied are not indepth but limited coverage? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, in extremis, merge): original article is a WP:COPYVIO and suggested new sources do not in fact demonstrate any substantive relationship. Most merely demonstrate that the two countries happened to be, unrelatedly, mentioned on the same page. Only source that did in fact demonstrate any relationship was for an extradition treaty -- the sort of very-low-level agreements that most countries try to maintain with most other countries. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of sources means nothing unless it is shown that they contain significant coverage. The few which are accessible do not seem to contain much info at all. Quantpole (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no substantial relationship. Abductive (reasoning) 22:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. 2nd relist rationale; consensus split, pointless NCing this one, may benefit from further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but remove copyright violations. Forgotpasswordsht (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. no argument presented on how this article meets notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: which sources are you 'basing' your "keep" on? This SPS (that only give a bare parenthetical mention of Canada being one of a long list of countries Tongans have settled in), this book (which offers no indication that it mentions either Canada or Tonga at all), [this report (which merely mentions Canada as one of a long list of dialogue partners of the Pacific Islands Forum), this book (which gives bare mention of Canada as one of a list of countries Tongans have settled in), this book (that just mentions Tonga as a nation New Zealand has relations with), this article (again giving bare mention of Canada being one of a long list of countries Tongans have settled in), or this article (which, at most will say that the two countries have an extradition treaty -- when such treaties are the norm, not the exception)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Would lack of an extradition treaty then be notable? Clearly interaction between the two states has occurred. And down playing expat Tongans in Canada does not make it minor - in Canada's multicultural society, all cultures are valued equally, even if they are from a small state like Tonga. You reference what is in the first of the books linked to; but how do you know? Do you own that book? Have you read it? If you do that would be really great to the discussion, as only one editor above has. Outback the koala (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) In an article about extradition treaties generally perhaps, or in an article about the foreign relations of a nation that had few or no extradition treaties. I would however suggest that the lack of a specific ordinary/low-level relationship does not add to the notability of the general relationship. (ii) The book is titled Employment and Industrial Relations in the South Pacific: Samoa, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji Islands. This would indicate that Tonga would be at best peripheral, and offers no relevance for Canada whatsoever (let alone a relevance to the relationship between the two). Lacking any indication of relevance it would seem to be simple WP:REFSPAM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title does make it seem vague, I'll give you that. It would be great if Treasury would rejoin the conversation as the only one here who has read the sourced book in question. Outback the koala (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hasn't read it -- "Google Scholar seems to suggest that this covers the topic a bit, but I can't find an online copy" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on DGG as an admin I assume you checked most of these new sources for their indepth coverage? to me they seem to only touch on the topic sometimes only getting one mention in the whole article. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG I think the closing admin might want to know the answer to this as well in deciding how much weight to give your contribution. According to your contributions log you !voted keep here less than a minute after you !voted in a previous AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I requested from Treasury Tag on 5 December "please list the sections that specifically explain in detail "Canada Tonga relations". I assumed good faith and gaive Treasury Tag one week to provide additional inforomation. No information has been provided to this request, I will have to assume that those secure sources do not contain indepth coverage of Canada Tonga relations. Thus my nomination stands. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio Removed -- I have removed the body of the article because it was copied from [5]. A revised page for this article was not created during the 7-day grace period, therefore there was nothing with which to replace it. At this point, any editor who wishes to rebuild the article can do so -- but please use original language only. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out to me at my talk page that copyright problems were restored to the article here. I have removed some of the more blatant issues, but much of the text that remains needs to be rewritten. The government of Canada has not chosen to release its content under a compatible license, and until they do we cannot duplicate or too closely follow their publications but must, as policy dictates, put information in our own words, supplemented with clearly marked quotations as indicated at our non-free content policy and guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per documented paucity of independent, reliable sources that address the topic of Estonia-Sri Lanka relations directly, in detail. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 *'''Copyvio Removed''' -- I have removed the body of the article because it was copied from [http://canadainternational.gc.ca/new_zealand-nouvelle_zelande/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_tonga-tonga.aspx]. A revised page for this article was not created during the 7-day grace period, therefore there was nothing with which to replace it. At this point, any editor who wishes to rebuild the article can do so -- but please use original language only. Thanks. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]</sup></span> 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 :*It was pointed out to me at my talk page that copyright problems were restored to the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada%E2%80%93Tonga_relations&action=historysubmit&diff=402012346&oldid=401987014 here]. I have removed some of the more blatant issues, but much of the text that remains needs to be rewritten. The government of Canada has not chosen to release its content under a compatible license, and until they do we cannot duplicate or too closely follow their publications but must, as [[WP:C|policy dictates]], put information in our own words, supplemented with clearly marked quotations as indicated at [[WP:NFC|our non-free content policy and guideline]]. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per documented paucity of independent, reliable sources that address the topic of Estonia-Sri Lanka relations directly, in detail. [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] <sup>[[User talk:Yilloslime|<small>'''T'''</small>]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Yilloslime|'''<small>C</small>''']]</sub> 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)