Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Estonia–Luxembourg relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

another random combination, non resident embassies. very little third party coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, Prime Ministerial and Presidential visits, growing trade and cultural contacts, four bilateral agreements, see here. Luxembourg is one of the Benelux countries, so it is natural to have the ambassador reside in Brussels. Also significant coverage in the Estonian media [2]. --Martintg (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

you speak Estonian? I note many of these articles in that search were in a multilateral context. similar thing happens in a French language search [3] yes there is a mention of president and PM visits but not anything else. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

if it's natural to have an embassy for Benelux countries in Brussels, then why does Estonia have one in the Netherlands? LibStar (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete- first, we need secondary sources to establish notability, per WP:GNG. Second, claiming state visits as evidence of notability is rather odd; these happen literally every week of every year, yet here they go unnoticed in general. Why make an exception for AfDs of this series of nonsense articles? Would we ever, for instance, mention the visits in the subjects' biographies, or mention any of the other visits happening all the time anywhere else? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I can count on one hand the number of times a US president has visited Australia in the last 100 years, so presidential visits are hardly an every day event. --Martintg (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

the US president being the most powerful person on Earth is a lot more notable than the Luxembourg Prime Minister visiting. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - No offense to anyone but there is a double standard emerging on these articles in general. Many claim (not naming names) that State Visits can't help determine these articles notable but no policy can confirm this notion, others say they are but once again no policy can confirm that. What we need is a honest to god policy on bilateral relations so that way we don't waste resources here at Afd with constant article after article going up on the block. Secondly I quote WP:PRIMARY, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable person." So basically Primary sources can be used (in some instances) another notion that keeps being dismissed despite the fact that almost every article on Wikipedia in some way or another uses primary sources. I continue WP:GNG is a official guideline of wikipedia, something that should be looked at to help us choose when to use a primary source or not but when it comes to policy WP:PRIMARY part of WP:V I believe, outweighs WP:GNG per WP:PG. Per this the notion that primary sources can never be used is absurd. As I reiterate what I said at the beginning I am not mad at any user in particular, instead I am mad we have yet to have any clear policy on this something we need before constantly deleting these articles or even keeping them. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There was a rough consensus against making a special standard for bilateral relations. WP:MILL is the main criteria I'm using for help in deciding how notability applies to these. I ask myself "Is this relationship exceptional"? A few visits with heads of state, an embassy, some normal trade... that stuff doesn't seem exceptional to me, when compared to other bilateral relations. Bilateral relations are pretty easy because they are a commodity. There's literally 20,000 of them for us to compare against. If you had to rate this one on a scale of 1 to 20,000, where would it land? In the top 100 most notable relationships? Top 1000? One like this is probably in the long tail of stuff that doesn't much matter. Gigs (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Exceptionalness is a rather subjective measure. How many Americans can name the Australian Prime Minister, let alone take note of a visit by the Australian PM? Martintg (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Most Americans wouldn't be able to find Australia on a map of the world much less know that it has a Prime Minister. (See here.) So don't you think asking them to NAME the Australian Prime Minister is a bit much? They probably know that Australians speak English because of Australia in popular culture. Drawn Some (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought they spoke Strine. The things you learn at AFD! Edison (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Notability means the same thing as exceptionalness. We have no objective standard for notability, and any proposal for one would be rejected quickly. Gigs (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Another random combo. What's next? Antarctica–Mexico relations? --Unionhawk ^Talk 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No independent coverage of the topic to back up this random combination of countries. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)