Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania–Switzerland 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Switzerland relations[edit]

Well, aside from the Berne incident and two recent referenda (which didn't really impact relations as such), there isn't much to see. Sure, there've been the usual visits (note the extremely warm handshake exchanged between the Romanian and the Swiss Presidents), but there's nothing special about those (at least nothing encyclopedic, as opposed to newsworthy), and there's trade - but perhaps half a billion dollars' worth, in two economies that are hundreds of billions of dollars in size. To be precise, 0.6% of Romanian exports go to Switzerland, and 0.9% of imports come from there. Oh, and this brand of milk was started by a Swiss - but let's not degenerate into trivia. The point is, this relationship is nothing sort of mundane, and the lack of independent in-depth sources means we should delete. If there's really interest in linking the Berne incident with the referenda, we could always create a Category: Romania–Switzerland relations for that. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, nothing more than you would expect from an international relation of this kind. Passes WP:N but not WP:Interesting. Wuzziest (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above editor is now indefinitely blocked for block evasion. Sandstein 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Romania's recent EU accession coupled with an ongoing integration of Switzerland into the European market through treaties has led to extensive coverage of issues pertaining to Swiss-Romanian relations in Swiss media in recent years, most especially related to the Swiss referendum, February 2009, but also e.g. concerning armament deals [1], foreign aid to Romania [2] or Swiss media group Ringier's entry into the Romanian market [3], and that's just the first page of German-language news search results. A 2006 report about a ministerial meeting notes that the countries share a "strong economic and cultural relationship" ([4]). A 2007 report about a state visit of the Romanian president in Switzerland adds that Romania is Switzerland's most important trading partner in South Eastern Europe ([5]). This leads me to believe that there is more than enough material available for an article on this topic. Sandstein 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For Ringier (which anyway doesn't have to do with the Swiss government, being a private entity), couldn't we expand on its Romanian venture at Ringier? And while Romania is Switzerland's most important trade partner in SE Europe, how much does that really mean in context (given that, for Romania at least, trade with Switzerland makes up under 1% of GDP)? And yes, of course a ministerial meeting would have a declaration that the relationship is "strong", but I don't know how much importance we can really attach to that. As for the Iraq business, while it did make the news, it's also probably something we'd never consider including elsewhere - surely it's not important enough for Foreign relations of Switzerland? Finally, the referendum article needs expansion on the Romania/Bulgaria angle, but what could be said here can surely be said there, in greater depth and in its proper context. In sum, then, I respectfully disagree on the potential for an article (the category option I mentioned above remains viable - update: I see the category has now been created), though anyone is welcome to prove me wrong if this is kept. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume that the scope of the article is limited to diplomatic or other intergovernmental relations. I, on the other hand, would conceive of an article with this title as encompassing all relations between the countries, including cultural and economic ties. The articles I linked to illustrate the potential for an article on this general topic. I do not mean to argue that the specific facts these few articles report need to be included in the article, although some eventually may. Sandstein 20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think an article on bilateral relations should focus on intergovernmental ties, but not exclusively, if other ties exist. And I didn't mean to be dismissive of the articles you found, but I think I provided at least plausible reasons why they shouldn't be used. The potential for a well-developed article seems rather weak, though I respect your opinion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even on the basis that Intergovernmental relationships are necessary, they include economic ties. Enough of this has been shown. But I don't think thats necessary at all . We can only go by the article title: "R-S Relations", not R-S diplomatic relations, or political relations of government relations. any relations between the two countries. The articles started out with diplomatic relations only, but that was a among the many mistakes in the way they were created. DGG (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. If there are sources to be added to it as alleged above, get on with it, because as it stands it is cruft. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Delete no reliable sources establish the relationship as an encyclopedic topic, and i can find none on my own that even might begin to do that. At the moment we have an unsourced stub that doesn't even try to assert notability, on a topic that is not covered by any independent sources anywhere. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the very significant coverage on Romania-Switzerland relations found by Sandstein, thus indicating easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long history, 2x embassy and state visits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. As the article looks now, it cannot stand as a proper encyclopedic article. If there are indeed available sources and material, then re-create the article accordingly.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?. One could say it is bizzar to have articles for the relations between Switzerland (or Romania, but I know nothing about Romania) and all the countries in the world. Actually this article says nothing. It might have been interesting if there was some minor history between the two countries but I cannot think of any and have read nothing. Trompeta (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just seen the France–Switzerland relations article, it should be much longer but look at it.

Comment: some info and sources, mainly relating to the economical ties between the two countries in recent years, have been added. Fram (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a webpage by the Swiss foreign department dedicated to "Bilateral Relations between Switzerland and Romania" at [6], which goes into some detail. Moreover, a 384 page monograph has been published on the subject: Chinezu, Claudia (2001). Roumanie - Suisse: approches diplomatiques, économiques et culturelles. Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse. ISBN 282710914X. OCLC 50053030. Sandstein 09:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Sandstein -- especially his recent discovery of two studies on this relationship. On a tangential note, what's with all of the circles on the illustration to this article? -- llywrch (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The circles mark countries whose relationship with Romania is even less significant than that of Switzerland :-) Vmenkov (talk) 01:40, 9 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.