Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania 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 keep. -- User:Docu 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations

Fails WP:N for lack of multiple, reliable sources on the topic. The one salient point, the presence of embassies, is already documented at Diplomatic missions of the Philippines and Diplomatic missions of Romania. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable embassy-only relation. Gigs (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noting that this is a 2nd nomination. Only minor agreements, otherwise close to no coverage, only mentions in a multilateral context. [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gigs. Note: this was previously listed in a group listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations, which closed as no consensus with liberty to relist individually. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete The 2 relevant articles about foreign relations of the 2 countries seem to cover the subject. Edison (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, there's quite a bit that can be found on a Google news search, and I'm not surprised. The Philippines has 90 million people, Romania has 20 million, but there's also been cooperation between the two. President Iliescu and President Arroyo cooperated on bidding for spots on the UN Security Council, and they were both non-permanent members there during the same term; "philippines+and+romania"&cf=all:
President arrives in Manila today (2002)
Romania vow to back each other's bid for non-permanent seat in UNSC (2002)
RP, Romania affirm ties (2006)
Romania explore more trade cooperation (2003)

Anyway, I think there's enough here to support an article. Mandsford (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with addition of material identified, notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. We still don't have significant coverage of the relations as such; instead, we've been given trivial news bits synthesized from passing newspaper mentions about scattered events. Are we really expected to call these "relevant relations"? What contextual importance do they confer upon the topic of "Philippines–Romania relations"? Can you really say this functions as a topic with the trivia that's been dug up? Rather than work with the assumption that all details of the relationship are notable (patently false), it should be clear that only the relationship as such, about which nothing substantial has been said and which is already recorded in the embassies lists, is even possibly notable, but that a mere statement of its existence would never validate a separate article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial is a subjective word, that shows the users own biases to affairs outside their own area of interest. Events are notable when reliable sources take notice of them, not when a Wikipedian declares them notable. Wikipedians don't determine notability, the reliable sources do. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the existence of AfD shows that Wikipedians do determine notability. In all the discussions I've been in, I've noticed that they're wrong, except for those occasions when they share my opinion. Whether something is notable is a matter of opinion, and since people have differences of opinion, Wikipedians do (collectively) make that call every day, and an administrator then agrees with one side or the other. To a lesser extent, whether something is "reliable" is a matter of opinion (Biru and I disagree on whether a government press release would be independent or reliable). "Verifiable", of course, is a matter of fact. Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, you've made this argument before, and it's a red herring. No one is against these articles because "they don't interest" him, but rather because they make no sense, because they are about nothing of contextual significance, because no one could possibly expand on such subjects without veering into trivial nonsense (which is, objectively, what we're dealing with), and because they set a slippery slope. These all go against Wikipedia rules, but you appear not to care. Please try to construct an argument that relates to what I said, not what you'd like for me to have said. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's your personal opinion that the topic is notable, and this vote shows the user's own biases toward affairs in his own area of interest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Everyone is posting their personal opinions whether the topic is notable or not. They wouldn't just mindlessly be repeating someone else's would they? Some believe its notable, some don't. That's why we have AFD to discuss it. Dream Focus 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a sentence which says "In 2003 the Philippines and Romania agreed to explore areas for cooperation in trade complementation." and if you read the reference it's mainly memos of understanding which are weak agreements. secondly the announcement was made by a "Trade Undersecretary" which is junior minister position. If it was an actual agreement made by the Presidents it would be a lot more noteworthy. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And, further to that, is there any evidence this "exploration" produced anything, or even happened, in the intervening six years? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the stated article topic to establish notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are significant relations between the two countries as shown here and here for example. Smile a While (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since i find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth beyond the extremely trivial and ephemeral.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their support of each other for seats, shows there must be something going on between them. Dream Focus 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting. How about some non-trivial coverage of the actual topic, as opposed to bits of trivia--an internal maneuver at the UN we'd never dream of covering outside this series of nonsense articles--you happen to consider evidence of "something going on between them"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:09, 19 May 2009 (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.