Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Tonga relations

[edit]
Canada–Tonga relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

  • Keep per the new sources Treasury has found. With these added to the article, I believe there is now enough for a stand alone article here. I will personally help rewrite the article to help include these sources once we can edit after the copyvio thing is cleared up. The template there says not to edit the page, but if we rewrite the page completely does that apply still? Anyone know? Outback the koala (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
have you looked at treasury's articles, they are not indepth. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
have you looked at treasury's articles – I would tend to assume that he has... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to find the books linked to, but I am coming up short so far - so I have not read them, although since Treasury has, I'm sure he can tell you more about them. I assume in good faith that he has the books and they say what he says they say. Of course I looked at all the links provided. He provided substantial material that he says provides clear sourcing for the subject. Why can't we accept that he has these books? Is it so hard to believe another editor? These are sources on the subject of the article, why would he lie? Outback the koala (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question the books mention something, but is it indepth? I am seeking more information on depth of coverage, the freely available links are not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's fair. I don't know myself what is included in the sources since I cannot read them right now. I want to hear from Treasury also since he read them and has brought them forward to us. It stands to reason noone would suggest a source he has not read; so he if the man to ask for more details, but I'm sure that there is enough coverage that it is not trivial. Outback the koala (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to rewrite the article without infringing material, follow the instructions on the copyvio template. Use the link there to create a temporary subpage where the new article can be constructed. If the revised version eliminates the copyvio problem, an administrator will replace the old page with the new subpage. For discussion purposes here, you can always direct people to the subpage revision. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—if it is a copyright violation then it is easy to fix. This appears to have some relevance. Google Scholar seems to suggest that this covers the topic a bit, but I can't find an online copy. This relates to Tongan dialogue with Canada. This seems very much germane. This touches on the subject. This sheds some light on the trade and financial relationship between the two countries. I've read this article, which covers extradition arrangements between the states.
    I could go on.
    Basically, name-checking WP:BEFORE in an XfD nomination is not actually a substitute for doing proper research on the topic. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 10:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it seems like you are grasping at straws here. None of those sources have anything substantial to say about the relations. The first couple have just a mention of Canada and no content on the topic. I support bilateral relations articles wholeheartedly, but lets not be ridiculous about it.--TM 14:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree wholeheartedly with TM, the supplied links by treasury are not indepth or cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase. This makes one very small mention of Tongans migrating to Canada amongst other countries. this makes a tiny mention of Canada in its footnote. this is hardly indepth coverage of bilateral relations. this is another tiny mention in one whole book. clutching at straws to say a real notable relationship exists. clutching at straws indeed. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the supplied links by treasury [...] cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase – I wasn't aware that Wikipedia only accepted sources which were readable gratis by anyone with an Internet connection. I was under the impression that articles in published books and academic journals are considered adequate. Am I wrong? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guidance on this point requested. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I can quite see how articles about extradition treaties between the two states are insubstantial... </sarcasm> ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, there is no need for sarcasm. This is a discussion and your attempts to belittle my point of view are not appreciated nor appropriate. If your incivility in AfD continues (as I watched you and another editor both engage in such actions at a previous AfD) your actions will be reported elsewhere. Secondly, you presented a link to an academic journal discussing Canada's extradition treaties all over the world, not just Tonga. Moreover, we do not know what is in the journal article and how substantial or trivial it is. Third, you act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not. In fact, most of the articles do not cover anything that has to do with the topic. AfD's are not WP:BATTLEGROUNDs but places for discussion; not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy.--TM 14:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, this is one of those spectacular comments which I get to analyse in detail:
    • First off, there is no need for sarcasm. People quite often do things which aren't strictly necessary, such as doing anything which is not eating, drinking or sleeping.
    • This is a discussion and your attempts to belittle my point of view are not appreciated nor appropriate. I'm not attempting to belittle your point of view. This is a discussion, and I am entitled to express my disagreement with your position using a rhetorical device of my choice.
    • If your incivility in AfD continues your actions will be reported elsewhere. Well, obviously elswhere: reporting them here would be rather pointless. And if you wish to report me for "incivil" mild sarcasm, then go ahead, see if I give a dolphin.
    • Secondly, you presented a link to an academic journal discussing Canada's extradition treaties all over the world, not just Tonga. I know I did, but thanks for the reminder. I am not familiar with any Wikipedia guideline stating that any reference must be soley concerned with a single subject. (It is quite common for articles about, say, individual British Prime Ministers to contain references from books about British Prime Ministers generally. This is permissible because – obviously – sources which cover a number of topics are perfectly capable of going into detail.)
    • Third, you act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not. I think they are significant. You claim that they are not, but have provided no rationale for that position, so it's rather difficult for me to discuss this point.
    • In fact, most of the articles do not cover anything that has to do with the topic. Really? So you think this is my scam, I trot about filling AfDs up with randomly-selected sources? :P The references I have listed (which, incidentally, convinced another editor to change their !vote) clearly pertain to Candian-Tonganese relations, and it is, frankly, bizarre to claim otherwise.
    • Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Mmm.
    ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Outback. There really does not seem to be any significant relationship between the two states. Treasury, can you find how much aid Tonga receives from Canada? If it is one of its major donors, then I would definitely change my opinion. According to CIA.gov, Canada is not one of the leading import-exporters to/from Tonga.[3] I wish people would work to increase truly viable bilateral relations articles which are missing; for example, China-Tonga relations would make a fine article. Come on people, stop making lame bilateral relations articles when so many really useful ones are waiting.--TM 13:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TM, I disagree with you on the merit of accepting bilateral relations article in principle, in these days when very different nations have frequent dealings with one another on all sorts of matters, not necessarily on a purely bilateral basis but also in bilateral contacts within mutlilateral institutions. Nevertheless I agree with you that an article on China-Tonga relations would be useful, which is why it is sad time and effort is distracted by this AfD. (Addition: In fact there is an article People's Republic of China – Tonga relations) Opbeith (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am sorry, but since this article is a blatant copyright violation, I have templated the page per our requirements at WP:CV. Editors interested in rewriting an article without infringing text can rebuild the article using the "temporary subpage" link on the template. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Treasury, and look at this: [4] Merge and redirect Oops, the source i found was Australia not Canada... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetyal (talk • contribs)
  • Comment WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So the argument "cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase" is irrelevant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment my comment relates to whether or not we can verify how it contributes to Canada Tonga relations. Does this book include substantial coverage of Canadian relations? Does this actually cover relations in depth. almost of this coverage only touches the subject and does not treat it in depth. most of it can be inserted into Foreign relations of Tonga. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are unable to read a source which another editor asserts is relevant, then what a normal person would do is to ask for an emailed copy, maybe. Or you could head over to the Resource Exchange and ask there.
    But discounting it because you happen not to have access is completely unacceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discounting it but it doesn't have a chapter or title on "Canada Tonga relations"? we can't assume indepth coverage of these sources. where is the evidence it covers "Canada Tonga relations" substantially? LibStar (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please list the sections that specifically explain in detail "Canada Tonga relations". thanks. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do you agree that the readily accessible links you supplied are not indepth but limited coverage? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or, in extremis, merge): original article is a WP:COPYVIO and suggested new sources do not in fact demonstrate any substantive relationship. Most merely demonstrate that the two countries happened to be, unrelatedly, mentioned on the same page. Only source that did in fact demonstrate any relationship was for an extradition treaty -- the sort of very-low-level agreements that most countries try to maintain with most other countries. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of sources means nothing unless it is shown that they contain significant coverage. The few which are accessible do not seem to contain much info at all. Quantpole (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no substantial relationship. Abductive (reasoning) 22:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. 2nd relist rationale; consensus split, pointless NCing this one, may benefit from further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but remove copyright violations. Forgotpasswordsht (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. no argument presented on how this article meets notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: which sources are you 'basing' your "keep" on? This SPS (that only give a bare parenthetical mention of Canada being one of a long list of countries Tongans have settled in), this book (which offers no indication that it mentions either Canada or Tonga at all), [this report (which merely mentions Canada as one of a long list of dialogue partners of the Pacific Islands Forum), this book (which gives bare mention of Canada as one of a list of countries Tongans have settled in), this book (that just mentions Tonga as a nation New Zealand has relations with), this article (again giving bare mention of Canada being one of a long list of countries Tongans have settled in), or this article (which, at most will say that the two countries have an extradition treaty -- when such treaties are the norm, not the exception)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Would lack of an extradition treaty then be notable? Clearly interaction between the two states has occurred. And down playing expat Tongans in Canada does not make it minor - in Canada's multicultural society, all cultures are valued equally, even if they are from a small state like Tonga. You reference what is in the first of the books linked to; but how do you know? Do you own that book? Have you read it? If you do that would be really great to the discussion, as only one editor above has. Outback the koala (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (i) In an article about extradition treaties generally perhaps, or in an article about the foreign relations of a nation that had few or no extradition treaties. I would however suggest that the lack of a specific ordinary/low-level relationship does not add to the notability of the general relationship. (ii) The book is titled Employment and Industrial Relations in the South Pacific: Samoa, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji Islands. This would indicate that Tonga would be at best peripheral, and offers no relevance for Canada whatsoever (let alone a relevance to the relationship between the two). Lacking any indication of relevance it would seem to be simple WP:REFSPAM. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on DGG as an admin I assume you checked most of these new sources for their indepth coverage? to me they seem to only touch on the topic sometimes only getting one mention in the whole article. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG I think the closing admin might want to know the answer to this as well in deciding how much weight to give your contribution. According to your contributions log you !voted keep here less than a minute after you !voted in a previous AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I requested from Treasury Tag on 5 December "please list the sections that specifically explain in detail "Canada Tonga relations". I assumed good faith and gaive Treasury Tag one week to provide additional inforomation. No information has been provided to this request, I will have to assume that those secure sources do not contain indepth coverage of Canada Tonga relations. Thus my nomination stands. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio Removed -- I have removed the body of the article because it was copied from [5]. A revised page for this article was not created during the 7-day grace period, therefore there was nothing with which to replace it. At this point, any editor who wishes to rebuild the article can do so -- but please use original language only. Thanks. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was pointed out to me at my talk page that copyright problems were restored to the article here. I have removed some of the more blatant issues, but much of the text that remains needs to be rewritten. The government of Canada has not chosen to release its content under a compatible license, and until they do we cannot duplicate or too closely follow their publications but must, as policy dictates, put information in our own words, supplemented with clearly marked quotations as indicated at our non-free content policy and guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per documented paucity of independent, reliable sources that address the topic of Canada–Tonga Estonia-Sri Lanka relations directly, in detail. I could also get behind a merge and redirect, but delete would be my first choice. Yilloslime TC 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources provided to demonstrate that this is a subject notable enough for its own article. Robofish (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look, anyone who follows these discussions can see the pattern. Libstar nominates for deletion prompting a bunch of people to try to improve the article, which they sometimes do effectively enough on a short deadline to save it from deletion. You can probably predict my argument. Relations exist. They're cited. There should be inherent notability for these bilateral state relation articles akin to populated places. Since that's not the majority view, if the AfD doesn't result in a keep, the article's content should be merged into the general foreign relations articles for each of the two countries (thus becoming somewhat repetitive but at least saving the cited content). In this case, the argument for inherent notability is strong. The two countries have had treaty relations going back over 130 years which is saying something and both countries had close historical ties to the British empire (Tonga as a Protectorate and Canada as a British colony). There's more information out there, we just haven't found it. To simply erase the information we have found would be a real waste.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeh, I've seen the pattern. An article on a non-WP:Notable vestigial bilateral relationship gets nominated. People try to load it up with all sorts of superficial and tangential information to disguise its insignificance (a 19th century extradition treaty, for crikey's sake?). If we looked hard enough, we could probably find that "relations exist", and that they can be "cited", between some farmer in rural US and his neighbour. Does that mean that we should have an article about the pair? Of course not! As WP:IINFO states: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." "The argument for inherent notability is" ludicrously weak. This article is about neither Britian-Canada nor Britain-Tonga relations, so the fact that "both countries had close historical ties to the British empire" is irrelevant. The fact that neither country has resident representation in the other indicates that neither places any particular importance on the relationship. Then there is the fact that Canada has no role of any significance inside the South Pacific, and that Tonga has no role of any significance outside it. There may well be more insignificant scraps of information out there, but it won't add any more towards notability than the insignificant scraps already there. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: Foreign relations of Tonga#Current foreign policy: "Although it remains on good terms with the United Kingdom, the two countries do not maintain particularly close relations" (making it even less likely that the mutual "historical ties to the British empire" will have led to a close bilateral relationship). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • totally agree with Hrafn, Gibraltar and Tonga are part of the British empire, perhaps we need an article on their relations?. Cdogsimmons exclaims " There's more information out there, we just haven't found it." so sources exist but you can't find them? pathetic. this AfD has existed for 15 days there, ample time to find good sources. and all anyone could find was Treasury Tag's passing weak mentions. I will strongly claim there is no indepth coverage out there on this topic. come on Cdog, disprove me and find 5 indepth sources (not passing mentions) of these relations and I will happily withdraw this nomination. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call me or my argument "pathetic". It's rude. Since I just found out about this AfD yesterday and was easily able to find a couple of sources relating to the counties' legal relations in five minutes of searching, I conclude that laziness has as much to do with the quality of this article as anything else.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, give me six more days to work on this article and I will take up your challenge. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gibraltar isn't independent of the UK, so doesn't really count. But substituting (for example) The Bahamas, the same point remains. Simple co-membership in the British Commonwealth does not imply any significant bilateral relations. For this you need common cultural, historical or trading ties. As far as I know, the most important thing that Tonga and Canada have in common is that they're both (very minor) Rugby Union-playing countries. But if they don't happen to come together in the same pool for the first round of the Rugby Union World Cup, there's a good chance that they won't play each other at all in a given year (or most probably decade). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The GNG requires us to consider whether the subject of the article - being a diplomatic relationship - has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Tidbits of coverage related to isolated aspects here and there do not do the job. Otherwise the article is a hopeless synthesis of google hits brought together to amount to the Wikipedia view of the relationship. In other words, original research. We need secondary sources that actually discuss the relationship as a whole, and in detail. The GNG, correctly, tolerates no less. Hrafn's analysis of the sources presented demonstrates that the coverage doesn't get anywhere near the required standard. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that these relations articles also incorporate the relations between the peoples of countries, not merely the present government's diplomatic posture. An unnecessarily narrow reading not backed up by citations is also original research.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added cited information regarding Canadian missionaries to Tonga.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which really proves my point about the article being a random synthesis of factoids. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does a single missionary, over a century ago, translate to close "relations between the peoples of countries"? I'm fairly sure your source doesn't make that claim. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the apparent perception of something incongruous in nations that differ significantly from one another in terms of population, land mass, language, location or whatever shows a lack of familiarity with real world issues such as development cooperation, security, migrant labour, biodiversity, whaling, human rights, organised crime, climate change, etc., etc. There is a prima facie case for taking the significance of relations between any independent nation and another for granted as legitimising the existence of an article which would be longer or shorter depending on the activity of the relationship.Opbeith (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are fine. They trade together, they have news coverage of the leader of this nation visiting them[6], and they have ample coverage of their Rugby tournaments with each other. [7] Canada has given them some money in foreign aid, they not doing that with every country there is, so they must have a reason to favor this one. There are over 24 thousand results in Google news archive search if the names of the two countries are both searched for, and two thousand less if you remove any with mention of "Rugby" [8]. Hard to sort through all of that. Enough sources have been found. Dream Focus 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have NO EVIDENCE to date that "they trade together", the only Prime Ministerial visit was 55 years ago (indicating the lack of any close relations), and both that & the World Cup pool-round tie are "routine news reporting" (WP:NOTNEWS). WP:GHITS of mere (possibly unrelated) mention of the two countries in the same article does not demonstrate "significant coverage". No "significant coverage" has been found. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
totally agree with Hrafn, Dream Focus, 24 thousand results does not equate to 24,000 sources, not even ten indepth sources can be found for this topic. Most of these mentions are in mulitlateral not bilateral context. Tonga Mauritius gets over 1000 results in gnews but you'd never create an article unless you're desperate. LibStar (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you deem to be not significant coverage is different from others' opinions. I also think these are enough coverage already. But here is another amazing source [9] from the Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Unfortunately there is no direct High Commission in Tonga; Canada and Australia have an agreement whereby citizen of both countries can go to each others high commission for assistance. This is a prime example of why that agreement was made. Either way I hope this adds to the significant coverage. I think a travel report that is valid for this month is definitely recent and not out of date. Outback the koala (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(i) It's really not my problem if people choose to ignore the clear wording of WP:NOTE. Your "amazing source" is simply a routine travel advisory (the sort that any given country is likely to have issued about dozens of other countries at any given time, whether they have a relationship or not) -- NOT "independent" and NOT on the subject of "Canada–Tonga relations". The standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" with clear definitions of what constitutes "Significant coverage", "Reliable", Sources" & "Independent of the subject" (with footnotes in case anybody is further confused). It does not say "affiliated sources and trivial mention" (which is all we have here) -- so I suggest that we take this guideline at its word. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Tonga_relations&oldid=1150995438"