Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bilateral relations. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Bilateral relations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Bilateral relations. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations/archive

watch

Bilateral 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. Summing up the arguments for keeping: An accusation of bad faith (Lugnuts) seems inaccurate; disregarded. "I think we should have a very low threshold for keeping these articles" (meco) is WP:ILIKEIT; disregarded. "Repeat AfDs are disruptive" (Dream Focus, Pcap, Dr. Blofeld) is untrue for reasonable cases, which this appears to be; disregarded. Accusations of personal vendetta (Carrite); disregarded. "All (X) are notable" (Dr. Blofeld) is simply not consensus for almost all cases of X, and based on AfD discussions, it seems clear that bilateral relations are not among the exceptions; disregarded. That leaves assertions that sufficient reliable sources exist. Summing up the arguments for deleting: An assertion that the sources in use are not secondary and/or do not cover the subject in enough depth; that the article is a WP:SYN or a collection of factoids. After reviewing the sources, I find these arguments persuasive. Take, for instance, the Reuters source -- reliable, certainly, but the content is this: "The changes were aimed at making Norwegian shipping rules more like those in the European Union, but industry groups have said the move might force some to register in tax havens such as Bermuda or Cyprus." I reject the assertion that the mere mention of Cyprus makes this an article on the topic of Cyprus-Norway relations; it is clearly not. (And yes, I can already see the DRV coming.) Shimeru (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus–Norway relations

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations
• Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination)

Cyprus–Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

neither country has embassies, could not find anything on trade between countries, the size of aid is merely less than 5 million Euros. according to this [1] last agreement was in 1963 which means the Governments and leaders are not that interested in ongoing relations. I could only find an article on tax minimisation, but many rich people (and companies) set up in lower taxed countries worldwide. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep That was the rationale you used when you first listed this article @ AfD. Seems a pointy nomination to me. Lugnuts (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded my reasoning in reference to trade, aid, tax minimisation and a lack of sources. your argument contains no evidence in addressing WP:N and WP:GNG and is therefore WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a clearly notable subject with plenty of WP:RS. Hence the keep. Lugnuts (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Are there articles for Norwegian and Cypriot foreign relations? If so, perhaps a merge would work. - BalthCat (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Well referenced and enough information for a standalone article. The dollar amounts and the years don't matter, all that matters is what number or year is reported in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - at first glance it might not appear to be notable, but apparently there are reliable sources discussing Cyprus–Norway relations in detail. Pantherskin (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Plenty of sources indicating the existence of the bilateral relations. Also there are reliable sources for Cyprus as a tax-haven for Norwegians including a colony of retirees in Pafos. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see how the image adds much value to this article given that it features no notable people or features. It is merely a bunch of people having lunch and therefore its justification for use is questionable. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the rule. Would the article on cats have to have a famous cat, or can any cat be the image for the article on cats? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

if the article is about persian cats then a picture of a cat is appropriate. But a picture of a bunch of non notable people having lunch? LibStar (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The picture is pointless. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

picture has now been removed for a very good reason as in this edit [2]. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I think we should keep a very low threshhold for keeping these articles. By me the article has quite enough for it to remain. __meco (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• The same nominator has been renominating articles that he failed to have deleted a year ago. Please stop doing this. You are just wasting everyone's time. I'm going to just copy and paste what I said last time, since its the same discussion over again. The AFD a year ago did end in Keep, by the way. Dream Focus 22:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The relationship between any nation is notable, and if you checked for entries in the newspaper from those countries, you'd surely find plenty of mention. So far, the article list the financial connection Norway has with this small nation. That sounds like something noteworthy to me. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - No notability established by reliable sources for these relations. Simply listing treaties and other agreements and calling it a "relation" is synthesis. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced and useful article. WP:synth exists to prevent a special type of Original Research where sourced are synthetic combined to form novel conclusions. There is nothing novel about suggesting these two nations have a relationship! For human relationships, folk might sometimes talk about the quality of the relationship itself in abstract or poetic terms. In contrast, for bilateral relationships, serious non trivial discussions invariably refer to concrete diplomatic events such as agreements and treaties. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is padded with a moderate number of sources that are primary, non-independent, and/or not really about the subject of the article, but has no sources that fulfill the WP:GNG requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There's a difference between being a historian and an encyclopedian, and if we're going to be mindful of it, we should delete this page and only create an article on this topic once coverage of the topic itself actually exists in reliable, independent sources. FWIW, these relations also fail my criteria for notability of bilateral relations. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any primary sources used, can you please point one out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Well referenced and informative article. The nomination is based on the nominator's own opinion on what notability standards should be for these articles. In the absence of specific guidelines, WP:GNG applies, and this article passes that test. Repeatedly nominating articles on personal standards is WP:DISRUPTION. The nominator is advised to write his standards as a guideline proposal and conduct an RfC for its adoption instead of these repeated nominations. Pcap ping 10:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep International relations are notable. Agree with Pcap. There are so much better things people could be getting on with that these repeated nominations. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep WP:GAL. Properly-sourced, verifiable, neutral, factually accurate. Wikipedia is not paper, the inclusion of articles on esoteric topics impinges in no way on any individual's WP experience. Why is this even being considered for deletion? Is this a personal vendetta being played out in public? I wonder... Please STOP harassing the esoteric bilateral relations articles! Carrite (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't know articles (i.e. electrons) were subject to protection from harassment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The users who value them are. - BalthCat (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - once again, a fictitious topic that no amount of trivia will be able to validate without evidence of its actually having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. And could RAN please stop abusing fair use of images? Uploading a copyrighted image of some random people having lunch in order to prove one's case at AfD marks a new low. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Random people would be William Thornton Kemper, Sr. and Nicolai Fechin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• • That last bit is off topic and not particularly constructive or civil. - BalthCat (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

it's not off topic, insertion on a picture was discussed above in the AfD as pointless and part of a desperate attempt to save this article by inserting a picture of non notable people having lunch. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is a pathetic attempt to dress up the article with facts and figures and other nonsense. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant Facts and figures of bilateral relations are welcome but pictures of non notable people having lunch is about as good as the time you inserted student of country X being attacked in country Y as somehow furthering the case for X-Y relations. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any Wikipedia rule that says that the individuals in a notable NGO have to themselves be notable to be in an image. Not everyone gets to be a Bono. Does this cat and mouse have to be as famous as Tom and Jerry or a star from Cats (musical) to be used in the article on cats? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a limit to what is useful, consensus has shown in this AfD that the picture of these people having lunch is close to pointless. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are over 15 people commenting, I only see you and Biruitorul complaining about the image. If you want to start a new thread on your concept of people-in-images-have-to-be-notable themselves, go ahead. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: passes WP:GNG with flying colours. I endorse Pcap comment of asking the nom to submit a guideline to RfC instead of keeping trying disruptive AfD's. --Cyclopia^talk 18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The same old mundane agreements about double taxation and "we recognize you". The non-notable functioning of bureaucrats. Nothing significant that couldn't easily be merged into the respective "Foreign relations of" articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Continual renomination of an article in hopes of getting the result you want is reason enough to not delete it, and instead to look at ways of improving it. And I don't see any rule that says two countries have to be at war to have a "relations" article about them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

could you explain how it meets WP:N and WP:GNG, I certainly did not support the 2nd renomination. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bugs, in all fairness, the first nom was over a year ago and the second one was a procedural close, which LibStar didn't even do. So saying he is "continually renominating it" isn't really that accurate. He renominated it once, over a year later. No speed record there. Of course we also know that consensus can change....Niteshift36 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, by getting different voters. Truth to tell, at first I assumed this article was a joke. Looks like it's not, in fact, a joke. One complaint somewhere was something about, "if we had all country X - country Y combinations, it would be like 20,000." That's a totally irrelevant argument, unless we're running out of disk space or something. In fact, it could be useful to have all those combinations available. (The rules of Third Normal Form come to mind here.) As a reader, I might want to see the status of relations between the US and Canada, or the UK and Argentina, or maybe even Cyprus and Norway. And if you don't have it here, what's the alternative? To post it in TWO articles? So much for the savings in disk space! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks Niteshift, a keep !vote should be based on how an article meets WP:N or WP:GNG not simply complaining about renomination. please keep your arguments relevant to WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bugs, we can agree to disagree about the notability of the article, but I think we can both agree that a span of 13 months between nominations that were allowed to run their course doesn't really count as "continual renomination", can't we? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• To my mind, it does. What's different 13 months ago from now? That you managed to get different voters? If the article were truly junk, it would have been gone long ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh Bugs, you know that the premise of "if it was junk, it would be gone" is bunk. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also the death by 1,000 cuts approach, such as the repeated attempts to remove the images from the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• And oddly, I see your repeated insertion of irrelevant material as being a corollary to that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The picture's relevance would be improved if the context were a little clearer. It seems to be composed of Norwegians visiting Cyprus. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) Something's amiss with the "not notable" argument. If two nations' relationships are "not notable", it raises the argument that the nations themselves are "not notable". I don't think that works here. In fact, what we should have, to be as informative as possible, is all 20,000 of those "relationship" articles, or at least redirects if the subject is covered elsewhere. For example, I don't think there's an article about the relationship between the UK and Sealand, but the subject is sufficiently covered in the Sealand article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Baseball Bugs! Our project is one of the few information stores in the world with the potential resource to capture the whole set of ~20,000 relationships, which would be a very pleasing and usesful achievement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. If the closer discounts everyone who is claiming any relation article is notable (the ongoing general dispute, and the Afd record on several other such articles is prima facie evidence this is not the case), and if they also discount all the arguments to avoid being given above by various people, then he has no option but to delete this article, because the deleters are the ones pointing out how it miserably fails our criteria for inclusion. Some suggest it is 'well referenced'. So? This is not the sole bar for inclusion here, as everybody surely knows if they are being honest. The article itself does not say one substantial thing that suggests this specific relation has been noted in independent third party sources as a topic. It is a collation of various referenced factoids, which absolutely does not translate into a coherent topic of a notable bi-lateral relation. And let's not forget that the information is not 'lost' if this article is deleted, what little of worthy substance there is here, would simply be moved to the more appropriate location, which is not this random intersection, because a lot of this info is not exclusive to the Cyprus-Norway relation alone. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As per above, a serious discussion of a bilateral relationship largely focuses on the concrete diplomatic events and other exchanges between the two peoples. What you seem to be dismissing as factoids is the very stuff that international relations are made of. GNG does not require sources to address whole subject in detail . A function of a tertiary source like our encyclopaedia is to collate information from secondary soruces, and thus often to produce an article more comprehensive in scope than any one source. As WP:Notability put its: ** “ Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. ** The references provided easily meet this requirement. And while several of the sources may not be independent or secondary, enough of them are to easily meet all the GNG requirements. Information may not be destroyed if we delete the article – but it very much would be lost. Information theory emphasises the importance of adequate retrieval mechanisms. A bilateral relations article allows us to gather all the important facts for a relationship in one place, which may be of great utility for different types of reader - individuals from country Z interested in Y for personal reasons, enterprises exploring opportunities for further trade, diplomatic staff looking for common ground to form coalitions of the willing to tackle issues at international conferences... FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your reading of notability, and the purpose of Wikipedia as a tertiary information source, is way off. I think your explanation of who would be looking for this random collection, and why, is just bizarre. The GNG absoltuely does require evidence of a discussion of the topic as a whole. Where you see significant coverage of a relation in sources, I see significant coverage of the actual subjects dealt with by the sources, which isn't the bi-lateral relation. By all means create articles on the tax status of cyprus, or the shipping regulations of the EU, or whatever else, but don't pretend that their topical relation, as presented in this article, is anything but an invention of Wikipedia, rather than simply being reflected by Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The fact that the coverage is spread over a number of only loosely connected events has no impact on whether the topic is notable. As for the last agreement betweeen the countries being in 1963, remember that notability is not temporary. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Biruitorul (talk · contribs) and, in paticular, the criteria developed by Yilloslime (talk · contribs). The article's content is tenuous and not adequately supported by germane reliable sources. Finally, I entirely agree with the statement from MickMacNee (talk · contribs) – "Some suggest it is 'well referenced'. So? This is not the sole bar for inclusion here, as everybody surely knows if they are being honest. The article itself does not say one substantial thing that suggests this specific relation has been noted in independent third party sources as a topic. It is a collation of various referenced factoids, which absolutely does not translate into a coherent topic." ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Since when are idiosyncratic criteria of a single user a policy or a guideline? If Yilloslime wants to submit its guideline in a RfC and manage it to be an exception to WP:GNG, then fine, but it's not happened yet. About germane RS, I endorse Feydhuxtable comments above. --Cyclopia^talk 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  I don't recall using the phrase "policy" or "guideline" in relation to the criteria. You may dismiss them as idiosyncratic but I found them perceptive and insightful, and agree with their substance.

  My reference to them was simply a shorthand for saying, "I agree entirely with the argument which was so eloquently put forth, on this page and on another, within the User: namespace, by Yilloslime (talk · contribs)," which I thought would be simple and clear. How I was mistaken. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Oh no, it was very simple and clear. It is simply not a cogent argument for deletion, because it refers to criteria that are not based in policy nor guidelines, no matter how "perceptive and insightful" you feel they are (I personally find them "myopic and superficial" but that's just my opinion). --Cyclopia^talk 15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  I see. But if I'd just stated the substance of this guidelines in my own words, in a stand-alone argument on an AfD page, like very editor's argument in every AfD, that would have been acceptable? Come off it! ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  It would have been the same, quite obviously. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  My criteria are basically just a restatement of WP:GNG with the addition of the WP:COMMONSENSE criteria that if countries share a border or fought a war against each other or one colonized the other than their relations are inherently notable. The only novel part is saying that if countries don't have embassies then their relations are not notable. This is based on my observations, having participated in dozens of these AfDs, that when there are no embassies, there are never independent sources covering the the countries' relations directly and in detail. So the topic fails GNG. If editors would prefer that I (and whoever else agrees with these criteria) transclude the page in AfDs rather than simply linking to it, I'm happy to oblige, but it seems unnecessary. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:59, 21 May 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. There are a couple !votes here that I'm not giving a lot of weight in my considerations. That all of these articles shouldbe kept is a valid position to hold, but is not backed by policy. Personal notability standards are even less so. Even said, Ive read the debate, I've read the sources, I've read the article. There's just no consensus here. Numerically there are a few more keeps than deletes, but several !votes on both sides were made with weak rationales, but there were also some good arguments for both keeping and deleting. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Norway – Sudan relations

Norway – Sudan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

YABRA (Yet another bilateral relations article). References are statistics of Norway and a link to another wiki page.

Nothing to indicate the respective foreign relations articles aren't enough, and we've had this discussion already on a thousand others. Shadowjams (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of multiple, independent sources actually discussing this relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as much as people think I'm a bilateral deletionist, there is a significant relationship here [3]. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly, most of those look like Norway's statements about Darfur; I would bet my !vote that you can't find a UN country that hasn't made a statement about Darfur (largest 100, let's say). There's no unique arrangement though here, which is what I always thought the agreed upon standard was. Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think Norway is more involved in South Sudan than in Darfur, but I may be wrong. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. These articles should be kept as a matter of course. I find it hard to understand what the point is of these nominations. __meco (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"should be kept as a matter of course" is not a criterion for notability. Please explain how it addresses WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete fails my notability criteria. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to Wikipedia definitions of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Are your criteria too focused on disputes and colonization? What about aid or the attempt thereof? Norway has quite notable relations with Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of X-Y pairings fall into the In between situations category. Most of those X-Y parings that have been deleted were ones where they didn't have embassies and weren't otherwise involved in a dispute. In my experience, when countries lack embassies there are rarely sources available that address their relations directly and in any depth, so the pairing fails WP:GNG. So BR#X-Y relations are inherently non-notable when: just tuns that observation into a rough guideline. There's not an intentional focus on disputes and colonization, this draft guideline just combines some common sense with general observations to come up with some rules of thumb. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep International relations are notable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

they are not inherently notable as at least 100 of these bilateral articles have been deleted (and I'm saying this as someone who is !voting keep on this one). LibStar (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep enough reliable and verifiable information exists for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep — Jesus christ, here we go again... This is a personal vendetta, isn't it? Just because an article deals with an esoteric topic does not mean it should be eliminated. Somebody did the work, it's done properly: VERACITY, VERIFIABILITY, NPOV. It's sourced and properly footnoted. Case closed. Notability is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that this is even being discussed for deletion is a waste of time. Channel deletionist energy elsewhere, por favor. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Personal vendetta? I don't think I've ever worked with you or the author of this article before. Your insinuation otherwise, aside from being wrong, is just rude
  
  Next, this (or WP:ANI#Canvassing for the current one) is the related ANI discussion that began with a complaint against Richard in a discussion like this. That also provides some background on the epic [4] battle that has been going on with these articles for about a year now. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations appears to be the closest anyone got to a standard.
  
  Finally, I naively thought this problem had been solved by merging content into the "Foreign relations of X" articles, which was what I thought the truce was back the fall of 2009. I guess I was wrong (and the vitriol above seems to confirm that). That's unfortunate because instead of discussing whether or not these relations meet notability, we're discussing a much larger meta-battle over some very entrenched ideas.
  
  I hope future [and past] commenters here will engage the actual argument about the sources, as Libstar did to me, and I responded (those are fair arguments; I'm not convinced, but it's a real discussion that's occurring). Shadowjams (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Another reasonable nom at the time, but again the article has been tranformned by RAN. Never mind barnstars, the man deserves a medal from the UN! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As the article now stands, it appears to have enough information to convince an objective reader that this is a notable subject. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:HEY, and Llywrch. We keep even the unlikely and weird bilateral relations articles. There is quite a bit of substantive commentary on the two countries' relationship, the impact on Norway itself, good clean images, and several good sources. It might have been a crappy stub two days ago, but it looks good now. I don't like the tone of the nominator. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NAM. I will assign an essay on it tomorrow. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. Under User:Yilloslime/BR#In_between_situations:, I think this passes as well. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wow. That has to be one of the most ironic assertions of WP:CIVIL I've ever seen. While we're assigning essays, go have a look at WP:CIVIL yourself and WP:NPA (well, the latter's not an essay, it's a guideline). Shadowjams (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• On the subject, you're one of the targets of Richard's early canvassing campaigns, the one that sparked the ANI thread: here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Um, Bearian doesn't sound unduly incivil to me. I wouldn't have used the same words she/he did, but Bearian didn't call Yilloslime "stupid", "ignorant", or otherwise disparage her/his ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexual preference. We need to allow some slack for lost tempers -- or all of us would be eventually banned permanently for what we write to trolls & other troublemakers. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "I don't like the tone of the nominator. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NAM. I will assign an essay on it tomorrow." I don't like Bearian's tone, particularly given his context in this bilateral relations issue. Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't you folks take a joke? First of all, I agree with Yilloslime. Secondly, I think the tone of the nominator was in fact uncivil. Thirdly, my references to CIVIL and NAM were so that people could step back a little while and get some perspective. Finally, my comment about assigning an essay is regarding how I'd respond in my classroom to such unprofessionalism. I may be pendantic, but I am never rude and rarely crass. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't get the sense you were making a joke, and I'm pretty sure you're still calling my nomination uncivil, despite some quite reasonable opposition. I asked you about this objection days ago, you never responded to it. That's fine because you're responding here, but my above explanation was a part of that. Maybe it's that you don't like acronyms. My naivety [see above] response should explain that. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, and I've been called out on my mistakes before, but I don't think this is a mistake, especially when an administrator is canvassed, the canvasser is admonished, then the cycle repeats. I made a nomination that explains, has been supported by a number of long-standing editors, and while it may ultimately fail (I'll leave it to the closing admin to weigh the influx of bilateral relations editors), I have hardly badgered opposes, or done anything else uncivil. So no, I don't agree that I've been uncivil, nor do I appreciate you calling me that, nor do I think you're objective in this matter. So no, it's not a joke, and your attempt to backtrack is transparent to say the least. I'm not talking about my professional status here either, and I would never [I hope] use it to justify my position. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Libstar's link should convince any reasonable person there is overwhelming coverage of the relationship between the two nations. [5] Dream Focus 10:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Libstar !voted keep, there's really no other way this one will come out.--Milowent (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete—the article only emphasises quite how insignificant the Sudo-Norweigan relationship is. Lack of germane reliable sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per TreasuryTag. Couldn't have said it better myself. SnottyWong talk 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As it stands after the expansion and the addition of several sources, the article demonstrates that the relationship between these two countries is well-documented and notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Covers Norway's involvement in the War in Darfur and substantial humanitarian aid. Notability is established through multiple references. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Sudan and Norway seem to have substantial interactions. I found 3,820 Google news results for "Norwegian" "Sudan", suggesting expansion of article is possible. Abductive (reasoning) 05:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note - "Pencil and Norway and Sudan" returns About 101,000 results. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I only get 493 results. Besides, I'm talking Google News results. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I know. I'm just saying, as I did in my first response, that Darfur statements and normal relations will generate some news. Your link's first hit is to a shopping site, of which the link is dead. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Many of the Google News results indicated that there is a lot going on, if one reads them. The Google Books results coughs up "In relation to the Sudan Norway has also played a high-profile role, primarily as a substantial provider of humanitarian aid, but also as an occasional participant in the peace process...", "Norwegian involvement in the Sudan would be an appreciation of the unique position of Norway in relation to that country...", "Norway played a substantial role in negotiating a peace agreement between the Sudan's North and South", "Sudan has had no official representation in the Scandinavian countries since the closure of its embassy in Stockholm, Sweden, and, until recently, relations with Norway were difficult, with Sudan accusing...". This constitutes exactly the sort of analysis by secondary sources lacking in other bilateral relations articles. Abductive (reasoning) 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, another nonsensical synthesis of random facts to suggest that this is a notable topic. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep , Substantial interactions and multiple references. What Stifle above calles "synthesis of random facts" is by all means not WP:SYN (no novel conclusion is reached), but it is the very stuff encyclopedias are made of: collection of sourced information from multiple sources in a coherent, structured fashion. --Cyclopia^talk 11:31, 25 May 2010 (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.

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. However absurd the topic, if there are independent sources with significant coverage, then we keep the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations

Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

most of the coverage centres around Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland which is adequately covered in its own article. other than that Norway has provided some aid to Congo but so has most rich European nations. those saying that there must be coverage in respective national newspapers of these relations must provide actual evidence. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• keep he cong has an embassy in Norway, and Norway has even sent them armed forces to supplement their own. If sending troops to support the other countries government isn't foreign relations, I can't think what would qualify. It's a more definite statement of close relations than anything else can possibly be. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

sending troops is not a criterion by itself, significant third party indepth coverage is the key test. WP:N WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The guideline reads: "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." You keep changing "significant" to "in-depth" when you paraphrase it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@DGG. At least according to the article, Congo does not have an embassy in Norway. I am missing something? Yilloslime ^T_C 16:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

my error. I struck that part out. The military relations remain sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Seems both notable and verifiable to me [with its rich confluence of source material from the most reliable sources demanded by Wikipedia rules]. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITSNOTABLE, could you please explain how it meets WP:N. thanks LibStar (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Essays are a fun read and write like Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions but Wikipedia only requires that articles be notable and verifiable. I stand by what I wrote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

that's a great argument for keeping Richard. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• There are reliable sources in the article, but they're about specific incidents, not the general topic of DRC-Norway relations. I think that technically, what we have here is a novel synthesis. However, I don't think there are very many situations where it's appropriate to remove reliably-sourced material from the encyclopaedia, so the reliable sources ought to be moved, perhaps to Foreign relations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Foreign relations of Norway. If we do this and delete the article, then attribution must be preserved, so I'm afraid the closing admin needs to perform two history merges.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia says in synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." What would the new conclusion be? If I said that the relation was "good" or "bad" or "growing" or "not notable", that would be a new conclusion not in the source material. I don't see that in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - notable as Norway is one of the main European partners of the Congo, as is shown by the coverage in reliable third-party sources. Pantherskin (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Contrary to my expectations, there is substantive information in this article, from reliable sources. Pcap ping 10:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. These articles should be kept as a matter of course. I find it hard to understand what the point is of these nominations. __meco (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"should be kept as a matter of course" is not a criterion for notability. Please explain how it addresses WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you point out that is is notable and verifiable Libstar will just dismiss that too, see my comments above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. Well sourced (meeting therefore WP:GNG) and pretty informative. --Cyclopia^talk 12:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Mere existence of sources in an article does not establish notability. WP:GNG requires certain types of sources, and sets a standard what kind of coverage is needed in those sources. And this article fails WP:GNG on all counts, therefore it should be deleted. FWIW, this relationship also fails my notability criteria. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The guideline reads: "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." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime, I am just getting up to speed on the history of these bilateral relations AfDs, and what you put together at User:Yilloslime/BR seems useful and a step in the right direction in creating a framework for evaluation. What's not as useful (to me) is when you say "WP:GNG requires certain types of sources, and sets a standard what kind of coverage is needed in those sources." The very debate here seems to be about whether GNG is met, i.e., whether the net coverage here constitutes significant coverage in this case, with a number of editors so far apparently thinking this is the case. I am certainly not yet satisfied that all relevant coverage has yet been found and reviewed, as I have added a bit to the article already. I would expect most relevant sources to be in Norwegian. Do have any further guidance as to how this one does not pass muster?--Milowent (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, the crux of the matter is that I've yet see a source that directly address the topic in any detail. My reading of GNG is that you need such sources; sources that address elements of the topic do not suffice. In building an article it's fine to cite primary, non-independent sources, and it's fine to extract relevant facts from books and articles that are about other topics, but for establishing notability we need sources (plural) that are actually about the topic as a whole. To put it another way, what's the difference between being a historian and being an encyclopedian? I think this article like many X-Y relations articles is great example of wikipedians doing the work of historians rather than work of encyclopedians. Does this make sense? Is there an independent source that you think actually directly addresses the topic of these countries relations? Yilloslime ^T_C 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is your personal interpretation, mathematically 10 facts from 10 sources are identical in their depth as 10 facts from a single source. Of course a single source is easier to cite. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You've missed my point entirely.Yilloslime ^T_C 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I understand your personal distinction, Yilloslime, but it seems hard to apply in a useful fashion. Any article/source that discusses some relation between DR Congo and Norway is by definition discussing DR Congo - Norway relations. I see numerous news articles that talk about relations between the countries, even if none of them compile all those relations in one source. It sounds like your standard is that you want sources that say, in substance, "Here's a summary of the political relationship between DR Congo and Norway."--For example, this book[6] appears to have chapters about Norway's relations with certain countries in southern Africa (but not DR Congo). No doubt, if such sources are found, notability under GNG is clear. But I'm not sure that if such sources are not found, that numerous sources discussing various relations between the countries don't establish notability.--Milowent (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If that book had a chapter on Congo-Norway relations I'd certainly consider it to be the kind of direct detailed coverage required by GNG. But a chapter in a book is not the standard I'm advocating. Articles in newspapers, magazines, and journals could also suffice. But I don't think an article about a specific state visit would suffice, unless it puts the visit in the context of the countries' bilateral relations. It doesn't need to provide "a summary of the political relationship between DR Congo and Norway" but there should at least be some indication of what this visit says about the relations. Are their relations good or bad, are they getting better or worse, etc. As I wrote in User:Yilloslime/BR, I'd like to see such a source spend at least a paragraph on the state of relations themselves before I'd consider the coverage to be direct and detailed. (And by paragraph I mean "book paragraphs" (4 or 5 sentences) not "newspaper" paragraphs in which each sentence gets its own paragraph.) I don't accept that an article on a state visit is by definition an also article the countries' relations. An article on Michael Jordan is not necessarily also about the Bulls, and likewise, I hope no one would argue that because articles on Jordan mention that he played basketball at Emsley A. Laney High School this means that Emsley A. Laney High School Boys Basketball Team is also notable. GNG requires a couple of sources on the topic itself, and this seems like a pretty low bar. For bios, all we need are a couple newspaper article about the person, but if a person known specifically for one event (like a crime) we typically have an article about that event rather than about the person. Etc. Does this make sense? Yilloslime ^T_C 01:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understand where your threshold lies. As happens elsewhere in the project, it seems in practice some editors disagree about how "significant" a source or sources are when a !vote requires a somewhat subjective weighing of sources. E.g., we get silly debates over whether 4 short sentences are significant but two long sentences are not. WP:WINE has a similar problem with winery articles, and there is much consternation over articles about marginal wineries which many of the Wine Project members don't feel merit separate articles. It has caused huge debates, but we are still left with no real consensus on how to treat marginal wineries. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Valhalla_Vineyards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Creek Vineyards. (In that fight, I lean keep for articles with all verifiable content and at least some notability hook (biggest in area, oldest, major awards, etc.), and delete if there is essentially no verifiable content or its more of a directory entry--which is not uncommon in those articles.)

Here, I see we have a group of editors that want a bright-line rule that all these bilateral relations articles are notable. A bright-line rule has worked well for high schools, see Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) (essay), eliminating much wasted AfD time. But I see no consensus for a bright line rule here.

The folly of the huge "war" going on over these articles is that the end result is just about organization. If Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations is deleted, the separate articles on foreign relations of the two countries can be expanded with the same content, right?--Milowent (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Well sourced article on a notable topic. Lugnuts (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep It is a little concerning that the nominator is not finding the obviously unencyclopedic articles but is AFDing potentially encyclopedic subjects. Libstar, I recommend you going through Category:Japanese voice actors or Category:Pokemon instead.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

could you please explain how this article meets WP:N or WP:GNG. secondly the discussion of other sets of articles and the weakness of their notability should be discussed in their own AfDs and thus is irrelevant to this AFD. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Properly footnoted, good veracity, and scholarly in intent. Why is this even nominated for deletion? Carrite (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another fictitious topic. No, news briefs from almost half a century ago about how Norway refused to build a navy for "the Congo" do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". For that, we need a treatment of the actual topic, under this or a similar name. Of course, no one in the real world has ever paid any scholarly or journalistic attention to the subject, and neither should we. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Biruitorul, I am open to conversation on the topic, as I saw your name has come up as a frequent delete vote in these AfDs. But much worse articles than this have been kept from my review.--Milowent (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to add an opinion at Australia–Barbados relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

how is this comment relevant to this AfD? people can find other bilateral articles by themselves. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't, it is a friendly notice to get more diverse opinions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Those interested in following bilateral relations AfDs can also watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations--Milowent (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong keep Nom had a fair case at the time he put this up for deletion, but the article has now benefited from substantial improvements folloing attention by editor Richard A Norton. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Wildly weak keep solely based on the diplomatic incident section. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You realize that that diplomatic incident already has its own article? Yilloslime ^T_C 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is a wonderful argument for notability of this article, since it means we definitely talk of a notable incident. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 17:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on the situation. To me, that existence of the article makes this one all the more superfluous. I guess if this article is kept, we could merge that one here. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The relationship between the nations is notable, as proven by ample coverage of things between them. Dream Focus 14:09, 23 May 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. Some of the later notes ask for a rationale here explaining what is good and bad in the debate, and since I am probably known for writing way too long AFD closing rationales anyway, I'll give it a go.

First a mathematics lesson: If there are 200 nations in the world, the possible number of "Xinia-Yinia relations" articles is not 200²=40000, since that would mean that "UK-USA relations" and "USA-UK relations" are different things needing separate articles, and that "UK-UK" relations is possible. The correct number can be found by using combinatorics, so "200 choose two" is 19 900 articles.

Second, my role as an AFD closer is to evaluate consensus. This is not a pure vote count, but I do think the amount of support a viewpoint gets is indicative of how well it is accepted by the community. In general "rough consensus" means a "general agreement", and if the community is roughly evenly divided, as is the case here, a "no consensus" outcome is the usual result. This may be fudged a little, but I only do that when the arguments presented are lopsidedly stronger on one side.

Third, I disagree strongly that this AFD nomination is "shameless to the point of vandalism". The last AFD was a year ago, and ended with a "no consensus" result. It is accepted practice to renominate in that situation.

The delete side have argued that the foreign relations between these two countries are not notable. The number of possible "Xinia-Yinia relations" articles is after all very large, and where the diplomatic and economic contact between the countries is very limited, they are unlikely to be of much interest. A few of the diehard inclusionists think most, if not all, such bilateral relationships are notable per se, but that is a small minority, and in my experience, not one which enjoys any consensus. The question must therefore be whether the Iceland-Mexico relations are notable.

For the specific arguments (and I apologize that I'm probably not comprehensive here):

• No mutual embassies. Indicates that diplomatic contact is there, but so limited that the bilateral relations can be done by another embassy. I find the counter-argument "what about Iran-USA?" to be rather off-the-point since those relations are notable for entirely different reasons (sanctions, mutual distrust, 1979 crisis, etc.)
• No major trade relations, Iceland is only in 118th place on the Mexican list. It is pointed out that this does not detract from notability. I'll add that it probably does not enhance notability either.
• Information should be included in the two countries "foreign relations of X" article. Certainly a possibility, since many articles are covered this way. This solution will require serious trimming.
• Canvassing has apparently taken place. Point noted, but the participants here appear to be good faith editors.
• A foreign state visit. Good faith editors disagree on whether this contributes to notability.
• There is sourcing backing up most of the article, so I see no reason to delete on grounds of verifiability.
• There has generally not been a consensus that sources need to mention the phrase "Iceland-Mexico relations" or similar in order to be counted as a valid source, as long as the topic is related to the subject.

In total, my personal opinion here is that these foreign relations are not high priority; diplomatic relations between the countries are sporadic and light. Nonetheless, reasonable arguments have been presented by the "keep" side, and since they enjoy support, I'm closing this with the predicted "no consensus" result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland–Mexico relations

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations
• Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination)

Iceland–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

this article hinges on 4 sources, one of them merely confirms they established diplomatic relations and confirms no embassies. the "agreement for the promotion and mutual protection of investments" is common between any 2 nations doing even a small amount of trade. both countries being affected by the Gulf Stream somehow being related in bilateral relations is a bit of WP:SYNTH. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Having entries on the Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico seems to cover all the information. If the sources were linked there there would be no loss of content since the article doesn't really say anything than "Relations Exist."--Savonneux (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Can't find anything to add to an article that basically says "relations exist". And it's also hard to justify keeping Country X-Country Y articles when neither has an embassy in the other country. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete "Iceland has a non resident ambassador in Washington D.C., Mexico has a non resident ambassador in Copenhagen, Denmark." Nuff said. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a silly way to judge a relationship. The US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba. Nuff said. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Really Richard? this is an extremely weak comparison, the reason the US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran and North Korea is for a long time they did not have any diplomatic relations and applied sanctions and embargoes to these countries. none of this applies to Mexico-Iceland. secondly very few countries have embassies in Bhutan given that it is so small, so mentioning it here has zero relationship with Mexico-Iceland. this is another case of classical straw man argument where choosing selective examples to compare... in fact this only weakens your case. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

When people stop using the canard of embassies and ambassadors as markers for notability I will not need to mention it anymore. It isn't a straw man argument. In a straw man I take the weakest argument and attack it. Only one argument was presented. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Learn how to indent Richard please. it's straw man as you are oversimplifying an opponent's argument by comparing it to very selective instances of non-existence of embassies, then attacking this oversimplified version. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If the argument is "[Delete because] Iceland has a non resident ambassador in Washington D.C., Mexico has a non resident ambassador in Copenhagen, Denmark." and my argument is "It is a silly way to judge a relationship. The US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba." It is not the strawman at all. It is a direct counterargument based on the exact presented facts, no strawman was created and demolished. It is no different than someone arguing that we can't have articles on countries based on the letter Z, and my counter argument is we already have articles on Zambia and Zimbabwe. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable CountryX-CountryY, no significant secondary source coverage. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't understand why these are created when there is nothing more to say than "relations exist". The information can easily be included in Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep again The same nominator is sending this to AFD again? Its the same article is before. Make sure to tell all those who participated in it last time, its time to do this over again. I'm just going to copy and paste my comments from last time, since nothing has changed, and my statements still stand. Dream Focus 04:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article, I see many things that make this relationship notable enough to be mentioned in its own article. Please read through the article, before just deciding you don't like articles of this type, and trying to delete it. The content makes it notable, not the opinions of others. And unless you have done a proper search in the language of these two nations, for things mentioned in the newspapers of the countries involved, you aren't going to be finding a lot of third party media coverage. But surely such events would in fact be mentioned there. Does anyone doubt this? Is there any reasonable doubt at all that meetings and treaties between two nations, would be covered in major newspapers of those countries, thus satisfying the current notability guidelines? ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

leaders and ministers between nations (given that are about 200 nations in the world) meet thousands of time a year, a few visits does not necessarily constitute notable relations. simply being reported in newspapers of individual meetings is not necessarily sufficient. if say 2 presidents met yearly that would be a strong indicator of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

also consensus can change. there is no rule against renomination as much as you hate AfDs. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep nominating it until you get the outcome you want. I thought there was a rule about that somewhere. Anyway, when you say "consensus can change", do you mean that the random bunch of people that appear to express their opinions may give you a different outcome, or do you believe that the opinions of those who previously participated might change? And a meeting that affects the interactions between two countries, thus has a notable impact on history, and belongs in this encyclopedia. If treaties were made, then its notable, not just someone getting together to have tea and exchange pleasantries. Dream Focus 19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

consensus has shown through deleted bilateral articles that a few treaties (and these are agreements which are weaker and harder to enforce) do not make for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has shown through bilateral articles you failed to delete, that if enough people are around to notice and participate in the AFD, then they are usually kept, because the relationship between two nations is automatically notable by rules of common sense above all else. Dream Focus 05:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any material being deleted. Smaller articles were merged into larger articles. None of the material was deleted. The ones that were just a few sentences were merged in Foreign relations of Mexico. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Unlike yesterday, has more information. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

don't see how this argument addresses WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want another argument? Well, The article have much more information than others that I saw recently (one is Samoa – United States relations). I don't think that Wikipedia is US-Centrist, but I don't know why this article is not nominated too. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS LibStar (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay and it not Wikipedia policy. Every legal proceeding allows precedence and Wikipedia has common outcomes. Pointing to a weaker article has its flaws, but pointing to a similar article edited by multiple people is a good argument showing precedence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Obioulsy, I know my comment (almost) apply there. I'm not saying "S-U exist. this too", I'm saying "If this article will be delete, Samoa-United States relations have to be deleted to. Of course I'm not going to waste my time nominating any article for deletion. It's stupid, it's unequal. THAT'S IT. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a shield. The guy makes a point in his argument and If your only reply is OTHERSTUFF, it discredits your own delete vote since you have on other way to deal with the Keep !Vote.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

it's hardly a shield, we are here to debate the merits of this article not other articles you think are weaker. "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". LibStar (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And you are useing that statement there to steer a perfectly good and honest statement towards an poorly writen and vaguely outlined policy that allows you to not only avoid statements like the one above but to discredit the !votes of others. I'm perfectly fine with allowing you to use OTHERSTUFF as a reason why his !vote is not sufficient to keep the article but to have your only reply be a link to a policy is robotic in nature and rude.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has engaged in WP:CANVASSing: [7][8][9][10][11][12]. While the message left on these users' pages was neutral, the message was only placed on the pages of users who !voted "keep" at this recent, related AfD. In fact all of the canvassed users generally or exclusively !vote to keep Bilateral relations article, so this a clear example of votestacking. Furthermore, RAN has added the {{rescue}} tag to the article. As the article was already tagged for ARS rescue during the last AfD, re-tagging it now seems like a just another means to canvass sympathetic editors.Yilloslime ^T_C 04:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia says: "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." (my emphasis added) My message meets the guideline of informing without influencing, cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking Yilloslime ^T_C 15:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to point that out as well but got snagged in the edit conflict. A neutral message sent to only one "side" of a discussion is precisely what that guideline spells out as unacceptable behavior. This is a fairly blatant violation. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

All the usual suspects are here, whether they were contacted via Wikipedia or ex parte. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard you're clearly fooling no one, this is the most blatant violation I have seen of In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard, if you feel that this behaviour is not canvassing then please keep it up with other AfDs...but I would strongly recommend you don't. Editors in the past have been blocked for canvassing. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Relations appear to exist, but mere existence isn't enough for inclusion. There doesn't seem to be anything notable here. I'd also like to note that canvassing has obviously occurred. AniMate 05:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Please note this delete is NOT on the grounds of notability. It is on the grounds that the material is short in scope and can be more appropriately dealt with at the main articles of the two countries (Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico). There is no demonstrated need for a spin-off article. Simply because notability for a topic can be demonstrated does not mean a stand-alone article is the appropriate way to present the information. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• And for what it's worth, it doesn't appear that canvassing for keep votes has so far influenced the discussion here (although it's still inappropriate). If anything it's helped bring an opposing viewpoint to the table that otherwise wouldn't have been represented. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete- there are something like 200 sovereign states in the world and it's a fair bet that they've all made friendly noises at all the others at some point. Does that mean we should have 40,000 articles of this sort? Of course not. Vague expressions of agreeableness between that countries that haven't really got much do do with one another, and don't even have embassies in the other, are nothing to base an article on. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, but, it may be helpful to take a community college refresher mathematics course, it can be a big help. Since Iran-Iraq relations is identical to Iraq-Iran relations, and because we don't have Iraq-Iraq relations, there would be 19,900 articles with 200 entities. That is how permutations work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• delete — This bilateral relations meme to create yet moar articles needs to end. It is a trick of the obsessive-minded to endlessly inflate things. Really, what's next? An article on the significance of corn to Iceland? The polar bears of Mexico? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is a fallacy called the slippery slope. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep article about notable relationship between two countries that is supported by proper sources and has many more available for continued expansion and further improvement. Even the briefest of searches finds that Mexico has a consulate in Iceland[13], the two countries have a mutual income tax treaty[14] [15], there is an agricultural agreement between the two countries[16], the President of Iceland has spoken in Mexico City speaking about the collaboration between Iceland and Mexico[17][18], there is a mutual invetsment protection agreement between the two countries[19], there is a geothernmal energy agreement between the two countries[20], etc, etc, etc. The arguments to keep at the last AFD and the ones to keep at this one are as strong and pertinent as ever. I trust the closer to make a careful examination of the earlier AFD and this one. Nothing has changed except the number of editors repeating the samed failed arguments from the prior AFD. AFD is NOT A VOTE... its not weight of numbers all piling in to repeat the same argument... it's a careful consideration of the facts and arguments as presented. And so please, lets's stop this one being repeatedly sent to AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• And has been pointed out to you and other inclusions along the way, diplomatic relationships and treaties are a routine matter of course, and do not establish notability. The pointless arguments are on your side, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct when you say: "diplomatic relationships and treaties ... do not establish notability". It is the mentioning of diplomatic relationships and treaties in reliable sources that make things notable. Notability is when the media notices an event and reports on it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • The leader of one nation visits another and speaks about collaboration between their two countries, and they form agreements between them. I would think that would count as a notable relationship between them. Are the actions of nations and their leaders insignificant now, just because you consider it so routine? I would think it notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and having a place that list all the agreements and ties between two nations something of obvious educational value for any looking up that information. Dream Focus 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Routine. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • To develop Tarc's argument, Jennifer Anniston and Hugh Grant may both be notable. If Anniston lends Grant $100, they both go to a party, and have some friends in common, and it's all documented in reliable independent sources, that still doesn't provide support for creating Anniston-Grant relationship. Some information is trivial no matter how well-sourced it is, and if it's to be covered at all it can be adequately covered in the main arguments rather than in a spin-off article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, many relationship articles between people do exist. [Angelina and Brad] for example, plus I've seen a lot for various musicians. That has nothing to do with this though. The relationship between countries is far greater than anything to do with celebrities. Totally different things we're dealing with here. Dream Focus 05:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We have intersection articles such as Martin and Lewis and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen and Rat Pack and many others. It is much better to centralize information than duplicate it over multiple articles. That is why we have Category:Celebrity duos. Anniston and Grant doesn't appear because there are just a few sentences that can be written. However, we do have Brangelina and over 100 others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that a documented relationship between two notable parties is not of itself inherently notable. Notability is not inherited; reports of relations between Iceland and Mexico may only attest to the notability of Iceland and Mexico, not the notability of the relationship between them. The relevant test is whether there is another material on the relationship to found a substantive article of a length that makes covering it in the existing articles impractical. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no such requirement that we need a "substantive article" to determine notability. 10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from a single source. A single source is just more convenient when writing an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: Canvassing aside, most objective editors agree that you can't build an article around a trivial fact that relations exist, plus a huge quote from a speech one day. Relations are notable if you can verify something of note. Wikipedia is not a directory of every treaty ever signed. We already have an article about the foreign relations of Mexico in general. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep this one is much weaker than Croatia–Mongolia relations. In general, I believe that any two countries which have established diplomatic and trade relations have relations enough to be notable. If they had ambassadors and embassies in each country, I would stay it is a strong keep. However, it is borderline. May I make a suggestion however? There are A LOT of bilateral relations articles which are easily more notable than this one which are not written yet. I've been working to create Chinese-African articles. South Africa and the UK don't even have a bilateral relations article!--TM 14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD. At this point in the discussion ten additional sources have been added to the article. It now contains 26 references compared to the original 4. Spanish language articles from Mexican newspapers and English language sources from Google News Archive have been added. The closing administrator may want to compare the nominated version versus the current version. Here is the nominated version and here is the version at which this notice has been placed. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). All the votes cast are for the version with 4 references. (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I note that none of this addresses my deletion argument above, which was not based on a lack of notability. My Delete still stands post-expansion. The delete votes of Savoneux and Good ol'Factory also do not appear to be able to be addressed merely by expansion and addition of sources (I'm hopefully not misrepresenting them). Other votes suggesting that the topic is inherently non-notable (which I don't necessarily agree with) are also perhaps not addressed by an article improvement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no rule concerning inherent non-notability, only an essay concerning inherent notability, so there is no issue that needs to be addressed, just a new theory that can be explored in its own personal essay. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. What is needed is more substance, not more citations of what is already there, and weak. There's a gulf of difference between the relationship of these two, and, say Poland–Ukraine relations. In the end, as a wise author once observed, "there's just no there, there". Tarc (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with DustFormsWords, many of the additions are mere padding, the long quotation from Pricewaterhousecoopers really adds little value and "On the trip Olafur Ragnar Grimsson gave an interview to Organización Editorial Mexicana and said that "geothermal energy has a future in Mexico." is a mere statement that says nothing about concrete actions for bilateral relations, Iceland have said similar statements all around the world given that they are a leader in geothermal energy. The funniest is this statement "Iceland was ranked 118th in total trade with Mexico and was ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association". there are 4 countries in EFTA so what is really saying that Iceland is the worst performer! this is trying to inflate the status of Mexico Iceland trade when on closer inspection reveals the opposite. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Better to use the exact wording of the original source. As you argued once before, introducing bias and synthesis can be a hazard in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. The standard for inclusion is notability, which is defined as significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While this article has bunch of sources, on inspection none of them meet this standard. Many are not independent, e.g. [21],[22]. Some are primary sources, e.g [23]. Others do not provide significant coverage, e.g. [24] (word count = 34) or [25] (108 words.) And many are not on the topic itself, but rather on specific visits or mention Mexico-Iceland relations only trivial in passing, e.g. [26] or [27]. Per guidelines, we need at least two independent sources that actually address these countries' relationship in a direct, non-trivial manner, and we just don't have that here. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep There is enough information for a full stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me address these issues directly: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• The article uses primary sources. There is no prohibition about using primary sources for articles. Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The only primary documents used in this article are the text of a speech and a photograph of the meeting.
• Deriding a fact by saying it adds little value or saying it is padding, is 100% subjective. It was published in reliable media on the subject. It was vetted by Google News as reliable. You are deriding the original media source, Organizacion Editorial Mexicana. OEM is the largest Mexican print media company and the largest newspaper company in Latin America. Deriding it as a source is just silly and US centric. You wouldn't say that about the largest US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal or CNN, the most visited news website.
• Others are not significant ... word count = 34 There is no magic number of words that has to be reached for a reference to be reliable or the subject notable. The discovery of the structure of DNA was published as just a page and 1/2. It is one of the most important scientific publications of the past 100 years. Terse doesn't mean unreliable.
• See Canada – Iceland relations for a smaller article with even fewer references for a typical article on relations.
• The funniest is this statement "Iceland was ranked 118th in total trade with Mexico and was ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association". We report what reliable media report, Wikipedia is not about superlatives, that is the Guinness Book of World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all deriding the sources nor their accuracy, I am commenting on how they are used to build a case for notable bilateral relations. Iceland commenting on geothermal energy in Mexico undoubtedly happened but I fail to see how this relates to concrete bilateral actions. Reliable sources in Mexico report the Eyjafjallajokull volcano, so do we report this in this article? I am surprised you have not added sporting results between these countries as you have diligently pushed in other bilateral articles. A long quotation from Pricewaterhousecoopers means very little except to accountants and not the general reader of WP. your use of Canada – Iceland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) example is a true classical straw man argument. for an article that I literally created TWO days ago, it cannot be turned into a full article in 1 week. truly selective and truly a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. if you feel it does not meet the very high minimum notability standard of Richard Norton, feel free to nominate Canada – Iceland relations for deletion. "ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association" should say 4 of 4th or last. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule against sporting results in relations articles either, ask any fan of World Cup Soccer what teams are traditional rivals, or read Blood in the Water match for example. Why the Olympic hockey game between Russia and US is not mentioned in the Russia – United States relations, I don't know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a strawman argument, in the strawman scenario I just attack the weakest of multiple arguments. Here I attack all the arguments, so it is just a normal refutation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my argument; namely that the material is short in scope and would be more appropriately covered in the existing articles on this topic. You also haven't addressed the argument that the sources merely establish the notability of the Foreign relations of Mexico and the Foreign relations of Iceland, not necessarily the notability of Iceland-Mexico relations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to duplicate a large article by cutting and pasting the information into two articles that are even larger? Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland are already large and unwieldy, and why would we want the same information duplicated in the two articles? What good would come from taking the article Rat Pack and duplicating the text in 4 biographies? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient commercial relations,which is one key type of foreign relations--perhaps the key type, because thats the usual reason for treaties and political visits and the like. Relying on the technicalities of "substantial" and the like to argue for or against an article is in my opinion unconstructive, though it's a useful device by which the GNG can be twisted to mean whatever one pleases. Back in the days when people thought that it was a fixed fundamental principal rather than a rough guide, I got a good deal of practice at quibbling about it in either direction to support whichever position I held, but now I prefer to discuss whether or not something is actually notable or not. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article has enjoyed considerable improvements by editor Richard Arthur Norton. Far too much valuable info would be lost if we tried to cram details on all a nations minor relationships into a single page, rather than keeping it in dedicated artilces. The number of bilateral relationships is governed by n! / ( (n-2)! x 2) so if we have 200 recognised nations we'd have only a very reasonable 19,900 items , not 40,000 as has been claimed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin this !vote was canvassed [28]. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

From the same page:"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Sound like something you've done lately? AniMate 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are wikilawyering. I love that Wikioxymoron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Two comments about Richard Arthur Norton's quote above: (1) This is the third time in this discussion he has quoted that passage. Saying it over and over again does not make it any more true. (2) "...if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". When messages are sent to numerous people with one opinion and not to people with a different opinion they do not appear intended to improve rather than to influence. What is more, that is so obvious that it is difficult to understand how Richard Arthur Norton can fail to see that fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Further comment - I think a problem with many of these articles is that they aren't really articles on the relationship itself, but more just a rundown of what the relations are. That is a key difference, and trying to glue together the latter to make it look like the former is exactly what WP:SYNTH is in place to prevent. This article may as well be titled "List of Iceland-Mexico relations". Things actually have to happen to make inter-nation relations notable, and reliable sources have to make note of that, otherwise it is just a list of agreements and treaties. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia warns this about synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Synthesis requires a new position, so if I say that the relations between Iceland and Mexico are "improving" or are "awesome" or are "getting worse" or are "not notable", I am synthesizing a new conclusion not present in the original material. None of the material used violates the Wikipedia concept of synthesis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Taking simple agreements and declaring that as proof the relations are notable is synthesis to a T. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

By Wikipedia rules they are notable. Saying in the article that the relationship is notable or not notable would be synthesis. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable topic with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly the article needs expanding, but it seems that reliable sources discuss Icelandic-Mexican relations in detail, making them notable. Pantherskin (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as not any more notable than any two arbitrarily chosen countries, and less notable than many. Precedent is clear that WP editors do not accept assertions of bilateral notability on the basis of common treaties. Collect (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Iceland's embassy for mexico is in... the United States. Mexico's embassy for Iceland is in... Denmark. No reliable sources independent of the subject discuss this relationship in any non-trivial depth. While the fact that weather in both countries is effected by the Gulf Stream is true, that says nothing about bilateral relations.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We have seen the embassy canard before. It has no known precedence in Wikipedia. If you know of a rule that says something about it please quote it. The US doesn't have an embassy in Iran or Cuba. It shouldn't be used as a marker for notability since the US relationship with Iran and Cuba are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Disclosure note: I've notified the participants of the first AFD who had not yet commented here [29]. –xeno^talk 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: This is actually a good article, regardless of whether it is notable or not. It has a couple of pictures (including the infobox), is well referenced, and the material is divided in sections. There is no good reason to delete such a decent article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I could make a pretty article about a totally non-notable subject such as my cat for instance, complete with a photo and an infobox, and divided into sections- but that doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. Reyk _YO! 22:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your fallacious argument is called reduction to absurdity and has no usefulness. Please use arguments based on notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - as several readers have pointed out, the topic itself has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as mandated by WP:GNG. Yes, the two have relations (not in itself notable, as established by numerous discussions), and yes, the two have interacted at a basic level (which is normal for most any random pair of countries in the world today, and which gets reported on all the time but passes unnoticed by this encyclopedia, except in this series of nonsense articles). That said, there is no source actually covering "Iceland–Mexico relations" in any depth; there are only brief news items about routine interactions that Wikipedians have surmised are equivalent to "Iceland–Mexico relations". That, of course, is bogus; we need independent sources providing in-depth coverage; unsurprisingly, these are not to be found.
• MarshalN20, WP:N is a pretty well-established guideline, not one you can simply wish away. And the presence of photographs or sections is not a reason to hold off from deletion.
• Dream Focus, you may wish to review WP:BURDEN. This encyclopedia is based on sources that can actually be located, not on hypothetical sources in Icelandic and Spanish that may or may not exist.
• MichaelQSchmidt, conspicuously absent in your explication of the "sources" is one that actually addresses this relationship, not aspects thereof you may find notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again the magic word "relationship" does not have to appear in any reference, any synonym will do. The article on 2003 invasion of Iraq has sources on the "insurgency" and "civil war". "Invasion of Iraq" does not have to appear, any accurate synonym will do. How do we know what a synonym for relationship is? Just look at what the US State Department uses as their website for US relationships, and what the headings are: import and exports, meetings, consulates, cultural exchanges, health and NGOs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a baseless argument, because we know what valid sources on actual relationships look like: like this, or this, or this, or this. The point is that there should be some source(s) that provide some sort of an overview of the topic, should it exist. None do in this case, which is telling. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Like many of these, there is nothing here beyond the normal pedestrian functions of government. There is nothing notable about this relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Meets the standards of WP:N IMHO, contains 14 WP:RSs and the topic in-of itself is notable. The foreign relations of any two nations that are internationaly recognized, wether it be Mexico and Iceland or Peru and Sri Lanka are naotable based on the diplomatic status of the two nations and the relationship (or lack there-off) between them.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Referenced historical material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember, verifiability is not tantamount to notability. Plenty of trivial details published in newspapers around the world every day pass entirely unnoticed by this encyclopedia. Just because there isn't anything substantial to say about this relationship (and there isn't, else sources describing it would have surfaced) doesn't imply we should prioritize the trivia found about it and pollute the encyclopedia with it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • International relations is undoubtedly a notable subject that should be covered comprehensively by Wikipedia. An important question is how to organise it. Deleting bits of it in the name of WP:N, which exists to stem mostly promotional stuff, does not help in answering the question, damages the concept of comprehensibility, and is bad for Wikipedia. Blind application of WP:N is bad. This sort of material is what we want in the encyclopedia, and whether it is to be stand-alone, or in a larger article on trivial relations, "Delete" is the wrong way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Again, not every facet of international relations need be noticed by this encyclopedia, and the norm for relationships that are actually notable is not to do so. To give one example, Israel and Syria interact in fairly important ways every week of every year. That does not mean that, when Israel–Syria relations gets expanded to a decent length, every twist and turn need be recorded there. A competent editor will use books like this one to chronicle the important happenings, but will not include every one of thousands of available press clippings on more mundane aspects of the relationship.
      • Now, if we don't give priority to that sort of trivia in articles on actually notable relationships (and let's drop the pretense for a moment, because no expert actually believes "Iceland–Mexico relations" is a notable topic), why do it here, other than as an exercise in "watch me do this"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Biruitorul, I don’t agree with your approach. We should have something on every international relationship. For some relationships, the material will be much more dramatic than for others. So be it. You seem to want to have an independent measure, such that dramatic relationships are covered in detail in proportion to the drama above a certain threshold. Accodingly, this would see Mexico-Iceland afforded no content. This is a rigid, linear scaling method that is almost never properly used anywhere. Better to minimally include the top half dozen most interesting things in the relationship. As a reader, that is what I expect to find in any resource. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
          • My criterion isn't drama, it's significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That threshold isn't met here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
            • I see an abundance of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a spinout of the obviously notable articles International relations, Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico, sources independent of the subject are not necessary. Are you expecting all sources to not be published in Mexico, Iceland, or by authors or publishers with interest in either Mexico or Iceland? That's just silly. There are not WP:COI issues involved, for which the independent source clause exists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability and "not a directory or random collection of information" (like the relationship between Fish and Bicycles, which has more refs than the relations of these two countries, per Google Book Search [30]). Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Neither country even has an ambassador in the other country. The canvassing means that a "Keep" result is highly suspect. Edison (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So it is notable enough to be in Foreign relations of Iceland. Then the question should be is there enough text for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The US doesn't have an embassy or ambassador in Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba. In the end it comes down to: Are the sources reliable, and is there enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The US is in a state of active hostility with at least Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, and deliberately withholds diplomatic relations. Bhutan is an isolated country which has "had relations with" few other countries. "I did not have relations with that country." This is a red herring and irrelevant to the present discussion. There are not enough good sources for a standalone article, and the information is better presented within "Foreign relations of..." articles for each sovereign relation rather than forming all binary pairs. Edison (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why there is no point using it as an argument for deletion. Stick to notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

While on the topic of red herrings, no one is arguing for "forming all binary pairs". We are discussing Iceland–Mexico relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Well written and sourced article. I have no relationship to Iceland or Mexico. I recommended keep during the last AfD too. Robert Brockway (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I think just about any bilateral relations between any two sovereign nations is notable. This case is no different. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You may think that, but consensus reached at numerous AfDs is that that is not the case - one needs sources referring to an actual relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I do think that since the consensus in the previous afd for this article was to keep it, and you haven't provided any diffs to prove your case. Even if it did, consensus can change over time. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Look, the point is that your argument is bogus; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Paraguay relations (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Guyana relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niger–Pakistan relations, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How does this article, Iceland–Mexico relations, compare to Libstar's: Canada - Iceland relations. Iceland–Mexico is better sourced, it doesn't contain sentences that were cut and paste complete with misplaced capitals and the non-standard spelling of mollusks. How is that article Libstar's standard for bilateral relations and this one he has put up for AFD? He is using the same types of sources in that article that he is condemning in this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard, learn to indent properly. I created Canada - Iceland relations a few days ago so you deliberately select a very early stub for comparison. This AfD does not exist for debating its notablity or suitability. it's a strategy that you're using when you have nothing more to argue. if you are questioning its notability because it does not meet your extremely high bar for notability, please nominate for deletion. however, I can confidentially say Canada - Iceland relations will easily have much more indepth coverage than Mexico-Ireland. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, but maybe if you spent more time on the article you started and less here, your article would be improved and not have material cut and pasted directly from websites. If you do cut and paste, at least add in quotations, or at least change the sentence case to the Wikipedia style or change the wording slightly. All the changes I made to this article were made in a single day. And remember what you say (I am paraphrasing), don't make claims that the article will meet Wikipedia standards, just do the work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Four sources? even discounting the other ten, keep. Thanks to User:VernoWhitney for advertizing this debate on ANI. What a frivolous nomination it was. East of Borschov (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder when number of sources became the criteria for notability. We deleted probably hundreds of bios for BLP1E that probably have more than 10 reliable sources. Source and notability are not interchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct! Even two reliable, independent source providing significant coverage will suffice. East of Borschov (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) As to your question when, it appears that the core of WP:N stabilized at some time in the middle of 2007. But I haven't checked the history of higher-level rules. East of Borschov (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Fortunately, we have the AfD's so that sort of thinking can't just run rampant unchallenged. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to address the arguments that aren't based on notability? Namely, that there is no rationale for why this material can't be covered in the existing articles "Foreign relations of Mexico" and "Foreign relations of Iceland"? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral Whilst not wanting to comment on this particular article, because it is a little hard to ascertain whether it is notable or not, having non-resident ambassadors does not tell one whether the relationship is notable or not. Monaco–Russia relations is an example of such a relationship. I will also note that File:Iceland-Mexico 2008.png likely fails the WP:NFCC. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Monaco is so tiny it (population 33,000 less than 2km squared) it is hard to justify an embassy there. I think only France and Italy have embassies. Most countries would get their ambassador in Paris to look after Monaco. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. There are details in many bilateral relationships that are better off in dedicated sub-articles, since WP has suggested maximum article sizes. And the WP system has enough room to accommodate the details. This article is extremely well-referenced without being wordy - every sentence ref'd and I don't see a single sentence that should be eliminated. We can reasonably presume that some or many of the other I/M bilateral relationships articles could be expanded to include the level of detail present here. Including this level of detail would make the Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland articles unwieldy. Novickas (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

so not the wordy quotation in accountant speak from Pricewaterhousecoopers? LibStar (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your previous complaint was that there was no in-depth interpretative material on the relationship, just isolated facts. Now you appear to be taking the opposite approach. When an interpretive source is added it becomes: "[a] wordy quotation in accountant speak". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

indepth coverage does not mean indepth quotations. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of reliable sources allowing for an well-referenced, informative article. The arguments supplied by the nominating editor and others are entirely unconvincing and border on IDONTLIKEIT. No amount of heckling is likely to change my opinion so I would suggest to the nominating editor that he or she needn't bother. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I will challenge the premise of this comment, because after all it's the closing administrator we need to persuade. Yes, the article does have "sources" and references". But validating what, exactly? That a routine head-of-state visit once took place, the type we never normally bother to record in this encyclopedia? Or that Iceland has some puny business venture in Mexico? How about sources that actually discuss, you know, "Iceland–Mexico relations" in their totality? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep , I agree with Mattinbgn's opinion.--Milowent (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Milowent, you generally have something worth saying on AfDs - would you care to comment on my argument above that (a) despite being notable, the material can more appropriately be dealt with in the existing articles Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland, and, in the alternative, (b) that the sources demonstrate notability accruing to the foreign relations of the individual countries, not necessarily accruing to this particular relationship? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to duplicate a large article by cutting and pasting the information into two articles that are even larger? Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland are already large and unwieldy, and why would we want the same information duplicated in the two articles? What good would come from taking the article Rat Pack and duplicating the text in 4 biographies? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• If the content remains, I don't feel strongly either way about merger in this case--I see that, for example, that Foreign relations of Mexico is a long article, maybe it could be included, maybe not. I see these "Foreign relations of x-y" articles come up in AfD, and I haven't commented very often because I am not well-versed in how these AfDs actually decide which articles get kept and which deleted. In very weak cases of two small un-connected countries where the article has no substantive content or sources, deletion seems appropriate. In cases of two large countries, e.g., Sino-Indian relations, the preference for a separate article is clear. In between we have a huge spectrum. This one seemed sourced enough to be kept. I understand the construct of the distinction you are suggesting to govern the outcome, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to say if I agree with you or not.--Milowent (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. I'm testing the argument, too, as it seems to be solid and policy supported, and I'm rather disappointed no one's directly rebutted it yet. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - It's all said above. Yikes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• KEEP! --Pineapple Fez 07:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

" WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject approached academically and with reliable sources which in theory is what an encyclopedia does. Comfort shoe (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: User:Comfort shoe is a blocked sock puppet. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:GAL — Get A Life instead of challenging well-done articles on esoteric topics. Wikipedia is not paper, the presence of this article in no way impinges upon the WP experience of any user. This is a waste of time challenging good material when crap is flooding through the in-basket even as we dither. Carrite (talk)
  • Esoteric is one thing, fictitious is quite another. Find some sources actually discussing "Iceland–Mexico relations" (sort of like how this source describes Brazil – United States relations), and I'll gladly vote to keep. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please quote directly the Wikipedia rule that demands this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, isn't it sort of logical that article topics will have been covered as such by outside sources? WP:GNG, maybe? - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Drama about the need to get rid of ARS aside, my deletionist tendencies just cant support getting rid of well-fleshed out bilateral relations articles such as these. It is well referenced, undoubtedly encyclopedic, and (while not a criteria for keeping) quite useful for a political junkie such as myself. There's cruft, and then there's esoteric. This is the latter, not the former. --M^ask? 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Undoubtedly" encyclopedic? Has any political scientist, journalist, foreign affairs expert, or similar professional ever bothered to examine "Iceland–Mexico relations", under any name? If so, where? If not, why should we? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please quote directly the Wikipedia rule that demands this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP:GNG demands "significant coverage" for "a topic", while WP:SOURCES speaks of how "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications", the underlying assumption being that at least one source will deal with a topic as a whole. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules state: "'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 a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This meets that standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • You seem to be confusing 'encyclopedic' with 'previously compiled'. No worries, easy mistake to make. This is one of the joys of WP:NOTPAPER. The subject, while notable, is not in, say, Britannica, because of the esoteric nature of the topic. Encyclopedic in this context is shorthand for well defined in scope (the article is limited to Mexico-Iceland relations, a distinct subject that can be covered) supported by references (not making shit up to fill a page) and documenting (admittedly subjective) important knowledge. Cruft is something to fight against, and I've been doing it for years, but this is not that. --M^ask? 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The key phrase here is "supported by references". I don't dispute the validity of the sources themselves. I do dispute that they amount to a notable relationship, since none of them actually talks about it in any depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, just to snag the low hanging fruit, you asked: Has any political scientist, journalist, foreign affairs expert, or similar professional ever bothered to examine "Iceland–Mexico relations", under any name? Now assuming you consider a Head-of-state and an Ambassador as foreign affairs expert, they did exactly that, by exactly that name: President Calderón and Ambassador Jónsson discussed Icelandic-Mexico relations, in particular ways to strengthen the bilateral trade between Iceland and Mexico. -M^ask? 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I concede that the ambassador (a political scientist by training) discussed the relationship with the president (a lawyer and an economist), probably in such generalities as "relations are excellent" (what else could one expect between this particular pair?) and "let's boost trade". But this encyclopedia relies on published material that treats subjects in depth, not on brief records of discussions about a topic. Had the ambassador published an article about this topic in, say, the Journal of Latin American Studies, great. That didn't happen, though, and we're left without evidence of attention paid to the topic in published sources by experts in the field. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. From a procedural standpoint, it is shameless to the point of vandalism to nominate this article so soon again. I know there was precedent, but it is still lousy. From a substantive standpoint, this is another one of those unlikely but notable articles. It is well-sourced, and well-written. The nomination is, again, of the brown peoples are not notable variety. Well, Mexico is a large country and its diplomatic relations are important. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It just so happens that this "topic" doesn't exist outside Wikipedia, meaning it's not only unlikely, but also fictitious. Sure, Mexico – United States relations are notable, but can you show coverage of this topic as such anywhere? Oh, and could we please avoid the not-so-subtle charges of xenophobia against Libstar? That does nothing to improve the "keep" voters' argument, which, as far I can tell, says we should prioritize any and every variety of trivia, provided it's presented in a pretty format. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please quote directly the Wikipedia rule that demands this. Your argument assumes that every notable person already has a biography written about them. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that Wikipedia editors cannot write a biography based on the same secondary sources as someone writing a biography. Is someone not notable because there is no published biography, or has no one gotten around to writing one yet? I don't think we can assume every biography of someone dead is already written, it is just silly. Having a published biography almost guarantees notability, but the absence doesn't mean anything. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a straw-man argument. Of course notable individuals are profiled in obituaries, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. Of course there may be notable relationships covered by journal, newspaper and magazine articles. The fact remains that this particular one has not, other than in passing mentions we'd never normally notice outside this series of nonsense articles, been addressed in any sort of depth by published sources, peer-reviewed or otherwise. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Again it is a standard refutation of your logic and not the strawman fallacy. The absence of a published book or long article dedicated to a topic does not mean the topic is not notable. I know of no such rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

An Icelandic-Mexican relationship exists outside WP - and has since 1964 - most recently in the form of binding bilateral agreements on agriculture, taxation, and energy along with oral commitments to support each other's agendas in the UN. These are admittedly mostly supported by primary sources right now, but that is not a reason to delete, government sources will do to establish notability. If it's lacking in secondary sources, I would say that's probably due to a lack of EN WP editors fluent enough in either Spanish or Icelandic to find the secondary sources. Novickas (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS; primary sources can't be used to validate the notability of a topic, and need to be discussed by published secondary sources. The government sources merely tell us relations exist, which is not inherently notable (per previous discussions and WP:NOTDIR). And two things about your final point. First, WP:BURDEN requires sources to actually be at hand, and does not permit unprovable speculation about what might exist out there. Second, if we can for a moment drop the pretense that this pairing is anything but laughable, we'd acknowledge that Iceland's notable relationships are probably limited to US, UK, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and maybe a handful of others, while Mexico's are largely limited to US, Canada, UK, France, plus a slew of countries in Central and South America. Not "Iceland–Mexico". - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources determine notability not what makes Biruitorul laugh. It is much easier to determine too, since Biruitorul will not always be available to perform his laugh test. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The only two primary sources used are the images and the text of a speech. Both were used for verifiability and not notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad, there are several secondary sources in the article. Novickas (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you were confusing primary sources with third party sources. It is a common mistake, no problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The information uncovered by User:MichaelQSchmidt is more than what can be crammed in the usual tables of each country's foreign relationships. Pcap ping 23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Still an ad hoc collection of incidents and events between the two countries without any study of relations as a whole or assertion of a notable relationship in world events compared to any other random two countries. --BlueSquadronRaven 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS - My Delete vote above notwithstanding, it should be abundantly clear to everyone at this point that there's no community consensus at this stage to delete this article. Let's get the AfD closed so we can all put our energy to more productive things. - DustFormsWords (talk)
• Keep Looks like a decent survey of rather minimal relations between the two countries. Since somebody has gone to the effort to put it together, let's leave it. It does no harm, and it is a verifiable and rather decently written article on a serious subject. This is not the sort of irrelevant or frivolous material notability guidelines were created to exclude. Ray^Talk 03:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep International relations are notable and this has an abundance of information and reliable sources. I can't understand how this is not encyclopedic. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep: Thoroughly sourced, passes WP:GNG with flying colours, and excellently informative article, it should be improved if possible, not deleted. This kind of relatively obscure but well documented articles are what makes WP more useful and informative than any "normal" encyclopedia. I am sorry that the canvassing incident smeared some of the keep !votes, since they for sure have more merit than the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments of the delete ones. --Cyclopia^talk 00:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• You know, saying "strongest possible keep" doesn't make your vote count twice as much. And it then makes you look silly if you're every asked to vote in an AfD on science, Earth or homo sapiens, because you've already spent your strongest keep on Iceland-Mexico relations.  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

excellent point DustFormsWords, I would save "strongest possible keep" for my own city since I know it definitely exists. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can use my maximum keep intensity on many different articles. I have a very high keep-ability! (for the record: I know perfectly well it doesn't make it count more, it's just a way to say what I feel about). --Cyclopia^talk 13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note to whoever closes this thing: Obviously this is going to be closed as "no consensus". However, it would be awesome (though certainly not required) if you could provide some analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments proffered here, rather than just stating there was no consensus and moving on. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Seconded. There's obviously going to have to be community discussion about these kind of articles generally and a neutral summary of what's gone on here would be of assistance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, its already clear that there are bilateral relation articles that are clearly notable, articles which are clearly not notable, and a huge swath in-between where editors argue about the quality of sources, whether those sources are "significant coverage", etc., and opposing factions exist about that. I'm not sure this one AfD viewed in a vaccuum provides much guidance.--Milowent (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(My discussion with Yilloslime at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations gets a bit more into how editors look at these bilateral relations AfDs.--Milowent (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

• Keep - There are plenty of sources specifically about this topic, more so than many other topics on Wikipedia. Easily passes WP:NOTE and its WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - Close however you like. Those telling you how to close have already voted. --Oakshade (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. These are becoming a bloody mess. The lot of you need to metaphorically sit down somewhere and hash out a notability guideline for these articles. Hint: "All of them are notable" is clearly NOT consensus. In addition, some of you -- on both sides of the debate -- are acting very badly toward fellow editors. This discussion is filled with assumptions of bad faith and borderline personal attacks. Those of you responsible -- and I'm fairly sure you know who you are -- may consider yourselves duly warned. If you cannot discuss these articles productively, then you might consider directing your editorial attention elsewhere, rather than attacking those who assert a different opinion. This is more or less a procedural close, as the debate is likely too toxic to produce anything of real use. No bar to renomination after a reasonable attempt to work out an acceptable guideline. Shimeru (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Barbados relations

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Australia–Barbados relations
• Articles for deletion/Australia–Barbados relations (2nd nomination)

Australia–Barbados relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

noting the last AfD was no consensus. the fact that the Australian government decided to move its embassy off Barbados says something about relations. and the absence of embassy is not due to no diplomatic relations and history of sanctions, like the reason for no US embassies in Cuba, north korea, Iran like some might say. 3 of the sources are simply direct from the Australian government. one source says "Both nations have given some consideration for the signing of a double taxation agreement between their two nations" giving consideration to what is one of the most basic agreements is not really concrete. other than that most of the coverage relates to sporting field [31]. those using the argument that coverage must exist in national newspapers in national languages, well Australia and Barbados both have English as main languages. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Fails criteria for a standalone article. also per nom and per my notability criteria. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Meets every requirement set forth for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep International relations are notable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not every bilateral pairing is notable, as established by numerous AfDs. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any that were deleted, the smaller ones were merged into one larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

over a 100 were deleted not redirected nor merged. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that number was just pulled from your butt. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All this talking past eachother is not really useful. The history of these bilateral relation AfDs is a battlefield, but many marginal articles have been kept and some have been deleted. There is simply a lack of consensus in how to deal with a large % of these articles.--Milowent (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

would suggest WP:NPA applies here. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • Biruitorul, you keep saying that in every article like this. That was never established. More often than not, people seem to state that the relationship between two nations is in fact notable. Dream Focus 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"More often than not, people seem to state that the relationship between two nations is in fact notable." that is not true. if they were automatically notable it is not proven through WP:CONSENSUS of many of being deleted. the fact is not all combinations are inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - yes, the two have relations. No, they are not notable because they, as such, have not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Surely the distinction isn't that hard to grasp? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep It has been in the news. It would seem that Biruitorul just hasn't been reading the right news. BBCCaribbean.com, CaribbeanNetNews, Caribbean360.com, CaribbeanPressReleases.com, and all the other 30-40+ various Caribbean newspapers. I haven't had a chance to get to this article as there are other Caribbean articles that require re-writes *and* referencing. So there are other articles that I've been pulling together references on. Barbados' main article requires a massive re-write for example. But Australia has been very engaged in the region in the past few months. For example, just today the government of Australia announced they would pay for the reconstruction of the Parliament building in Grenada.[32] In Barbados, Australia just recently held a meeting (either last month or the month before) talking about several new spending initiatives that they will be undertaking in Barbados and other islands.

Here's the results of some of those recent meetings:

• Australia to Open New Opportunities for Cooperation With the Caribbean
• Caribbean Development Fund Gets AUS$1M Boost
• Australia Makes $60 Million AUS Available to Region Over Next 4 Years
• CARICOM a priority for Australia
• Strengthening ties with the Caribbean

CaribDigita (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

these mainly refer to Australia's relationship with a group of countries in Caribbean and not specific Australia-Barbados relations. if this was Australia-CARICOM relations it would be appropriate. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Close as no consensus - Noting the ridiculous fracas over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iceland–Mexico_relations_(2nd_nomination), which conerns a bilateral relations article with a similar level of questionable notability but thorough sourcing, it seems that there is no consensus at this time to delete articles of this nature. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Speedily close as no consensus - and ban User:LibStar from nominating bilateral relations articles over and over again. If a bilateral relations articles is truly not notable someone else will eventually nominate the article, and we will not have to deal with disruptive and pointy nominations such as this one. Pantherskin (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

read my nomination, I have given my reasons for how I believe it fails notability standards ie a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, renomination is permitted particularly if the last AfD was no consensus and no subsequent discovery of more sources. asking to close as no consensus is just a masquerade for wanting to keep it. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you both avoid questioning each other's motivations we'll get a better result. LibStar is perfectly entitled to nominate any article that (he?) believes in good faith should be deleted, and (as my vote demonstrates) an editor can believe that this article should be deleted and still recognise the fact that there's nothing remotely like community consensus to delete well-sourced minor bilateral relations articles. LibStar and others should probably hold off on making more nominations until there's community consensus though, so as to avoid wasting everyone's time with a raft of these hard-fought and unproductive debates. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks DustFormsWords, I have never seen "Speedily close as no consensus " except when something is renominated immediately after surviving an AfD. This article lacks sources as one of the weakest bilateral ones, hence my nomination. The problem is that people are headfast keep or delete, I actually recently !voted keep on a bilateral AfD so am not intent on deleting all of them. in fact many (not all) containing pairs of large countries are notable. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen it before I used it in the other one either but once a debate reaches 20-something participants where at least some members of both sides are experienced, intelligent Wikipedians citing policy, it's pretty clear that there's not going to be a community consensus to delete. That's what happened at Mexico-Iceland and, while not all bilateral relations articles are created equal, this Australia-Barbados one seems to be very similar in length, quality and sourcing to the Mexico-Iceland one. Rather than replicating what is, by this stage, a pretty heated debate in both forums, both should be closed as no consensus and the argument moved to a centralised policy discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, searches indicate me far less coverage than Mexico-Iceland. Most coverage is Australia and a group of Caribbean nations and not specifically Barbados. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete There few things that are noteworthy here would suddenly become redundant if applied to each CARICOM country (they would be pasted into several articles for CARICOM members and Australia). Maybe a pan-CARICOM article is in order instead, but it's quite clear these articles only exist as cruft, and prioritize things that we would otherwise consider irrelevant, and no one would ever miss. Why? The usual process: stub/sub-standard article -> AfD(s) -> spurious "rescue" attempt -> desperate search for all kinds of sources -> trivia collection/ranting/inventory of photo-ops. Dahn (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks references to establish notability and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's website entry on the relationship here describes only very limited contact between the two countries, most of which apparantly takes place through the Commonwealth rather than directly. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, essentially no relations to speak of; lack of sources speaks volumes. Dahn's point, and CARICOM suggestion, are both excellent. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep A Groubani style map has been added. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

could you please explain your keep argument. how does it meet WP:N or WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close as no consensus As the nominator himself states above that he felt the close by User:One of this nominator's last nomination of this article was incorrect, per guideline, that would call for a review of the close, not sending an article back again to AFD as many times as is needed in a hope that he eventually wears down those who disagree with him. I am also quite concerned that he seems to have made attempted reversal of so many "relations" article closes his personal grail... almost WP:POINTY in scope. His recent edits to the article[33] show his wish that it be seen in its worst light. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete and let an admin close the debate. We don't need to guide closing admins in doing their job. And there is absolutely nothing improper about this nomination after 12 months since the last AfD. There is nothing about this relationship that is notable. The relationship has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources so it is impossible to have a reliable article. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The relations of these two countries are even less notable than most on the world stage. None of the sources study the topic as a whole in that context, but merely report events. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep , notable topic covered by several RS (I count 10 in the article), and which represents an essential contribute of WP, exactly for the reason that it is an obscure but notable subject we successfully managed to cover in a good fashion. The article deserves endorsement and improvement, not deletion. And please trout LibStar for the disruptive and time-wasting book burning exercise in attempting to delete notable articles. --Cyclopia^talk 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

three of the sources are from the Australian Government so not entirely independent of the subject. BHP Billiton has extensive operations worldwide, so simply where they operate in country X does not automatically translate to Australia-X relations (also note that BHP Billiton is no longer a full Australian company). LibStar (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Am not opposed to an organizational merge of content elsewhere, but no good reason has been offered for why verifiable content should be deleted from the project.--Milowent (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: I see "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", and thus meets the GNG. Or is the associated press now seen as too cozy with the Australians to consider it truly independent? Buddy431 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

three of the sources are from the Australian Government so not entirely independent of the subject. one source says that BHP is one firm of 3 bidding of a contract.BHP Billiton has extensive operations worldwide, so simply where they operate in country X does not automatically translate to Australia-X relations (also note that BHP Billiton is no longer a full Australian company). LibStar (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle (talk · contribs) and the general lack of substantive, germane reliable sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note—the fair-use image in the article has been nominated for deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, the coverage in sources like The Barbados Advocate, the BBC, and the Australian Associated Press is good enough to convince me that this subject meets WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC).
• Keep. Looking at recent nominations, I think there's a tendency simply look at the country names, notice that one of the two is a small country and they are on opposite sides of the world, and conclude non-notable. Some such pairs might not be notable, of even if notable have enough information for an article, but that shouldn't be assumed as a matter of course, The material here, especially as added to by RAN , is sufficient. Extensive commercial relations, with substantial reliable sources for them. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not look at the names, did you look at my gnews search? you have previously mentioned trade, embassies and agreements etc make for notable relations. there exists no bilateral agreements between these 2 countries (only multilateral CARICOM), no embassies, very little trade. they have very little not extensive commercial relatons, just BHP Billiton having a contract there. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient reliable sources to allow for a decent, stand-alone article. I think DGGs comment about the manner in which these articles seem to be nominated is quite perceptive. I also wonder whether this continuing campaign to delete these types of articles adds to the systemic bias that already privileges articles on European and US topics to the detriment of the rest of the world. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

how is this systemic bias? all Australian newspapers and news services such as ABC publish online? Australia and Barbados both use English so there is no bias with non English sources. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I do think there are far too many "X-Y relations" articles on Wikipedia and some of them are plainly silly, but this one is actually reasonable given there is some history to Australia's representation in Barbados and the oil and gas stuff. Beyond that, the sources appear to exist to support this one. Orderinchaos 03:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a notable relation, as stated by others and plenty of sources to back that up. Dream Focus 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nominator is the same who sent this to AFD a year ago. I'd like to point out, once again, that many countries do not see any reason to waste money having an embassy in every single country, there no possible reason for it these days, since you can instantly communicate with anyone around the world, and very easily fly someone over to meet in person if necessary. Lack of an embassy does not signify anything. Dream Focus 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

embassies facilitate not only tourism but establish important trade links in a country. for example, if a Chinese company wants to do business in New Zealand, they can contact their embassy in NZ. if there is no need for embassies because one can fly or phone then why are governments opening new embassies all the time? especially in former Soviet countries and Eastern europe and emerging Asian countries especially China. a lack of an embassy is an indicator of a lack of desire for strong relations. embassies and consulates also assist large migrant populations who want to establish links with their home country, and assist tourists from home countries. Australia has a consulate in Bali due to it being one of the most popular destinations for Australians, this is not some random coincidence. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

also looking at the hundreds of bilateral articles that I have seen, if 2 countries have embassies they are rarely deleted because it naturally follows that they have established links and is shown in wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

why do countries open embassies? Beijing opened an embassy in 1992 following establishment of diplomatic ties. Even a tiny country like Vanuatu knows the value of embassies. opening of the embassy will help his government’s policy of empowering the rural population of Vanuatu through infrastructure and capacity building initiatives of course why bother opening one in China if they can fly there? LibStar (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what has the strength of relations to do with the notability of the content. To document that "Countries X and Y don't want anything to do with each other" is no less encyclopedic than the opposite. --Cyclopia^talk 14:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

they are related in terms of how much coverage they generate. of course if they have conflict they also generate coverage which is another special case. If they have "weak" or limited relations unlikely to generate coverage and therefore satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So let's stick talking about coverage instead of using the embassy red herring. --Cyclopia^talk 14:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

it's not a red herring at all, out of the bilateral articles that have been deleted almost all have no embassies either way. it's an indicator of weak relations and hence often follows by coverage. same token people should stop saying "coverage exists in national newspapers" or "disruptive nomination", and not provide evidence of actual coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a red herring because it is only a vague indicator. The only thing that counts is sources availability, we don't need proxies for it. Evidence of actual coverage in national newspapers is in the article already -just look at ref 11 for example. --Cyclopia^talk 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, please learn some logic. The fact that bilateral relationships that were deemed non notable often ones without embassies doesn't mean that not having an embassy is a good predictor of being not notable. Lots of criminals drink water; this doesn't mean drinking water makes you a criminal. --Cyclopia^talk 15:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on embassy in Barbados this is one of the rare cases where a country has decided to move their embassy to an adjacent country. the fact that Australia could afford an embassy in Barbados but moved it elsewhere is highly significant. this is not a case of Australia never having an embassy in Barbados. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is significant in the meaning that it is a significant fact to include in this article. Again, the fact that has been moved recently means zero on notability. WP:NTEMP : notability of stuff isn't time-dependent. --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The cost of keeping an embassy open is rather high. If you don't need a staff down there full time to deal with things, then there is no possible reason to waste money for it. It doesn't mean the countries don't interact. Dream Focus 20:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• In response to: "also looking at the hundreds of bilateral articles that I have seen, if 2 countries have embassies they are rarely deleted because it naturally follows that they have established links and is shown in wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)" I'd like to respond:

Do you have a list of the articles deleted? I believe they were deleted from lack of coverage, not lack of embassy. I recall many stating that lack of embassy does not signify anything. Dream Focus 20:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course they were deleted for lack of coverage and not for lack of embassies per se. But it has been observed by myself, Libstar, and others that there's a very good correlation between no embassies and no coverage, and conversely if there are embassies then there are often sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I haven't noticed that at all. A recent article was kept, despite having no embassies. [34] Is there a list of all bi-lateral articles somewhere? I see you making the same case over at another discussion [35], but the overwhelming majority of people there so far say to keep the article, there plenty of coverage even without embassies, so it'll probably be kept also. Dream Focus 06:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who has voted in opposition to the nominator, I do however think there's been far too much focus in this AfD on the nominator's alleged intentions. I think this was a reasonable nomination made for the right reasons, and the community has responded appropriately to it by determining on the facts whether it should be retained or deleted. Orderinchaos 01:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks, Orderinchaos. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact that he nominated several of these things, that he had previously nominated, for deletion again, we thus having to just repeat the same discussion as before. And some of the other ones ended in keep, not just no consensus. Dream Focus 06:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

there is no rule against renomination after several months. If we can't renominate why does WP allow this? simply using renomination as a basis of a "no consensus" !vote is really a masquerade for keep. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Renomination is fine if relevant policies/guidelines have changed in the meantime. Otherwise, I think it's akin to forum shopping, i.e. "repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like." Yes, I know it's (unfortunately) technically allowed; it doesn't make it less dishonest IMHO. --Cyclopia^talk 09:51, 25 May 2010 (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.