User:King of Hearts/Admin coaching/AfD/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece–Jamaica relations (2nd nomination)

Greece–Jamaica relations

This article makes no assertion of why the subject is notable. The external links, presumably provided as references, have no context within the text of the article itself to prove why these events, or such relations in the first place, are notable in the history of either nation (

• • They serve to establish notability, which is the typical threshold for inclusion. They also allow editors to verify information in the article, and add more. It was previously deleted as it was erroneously believed that it failed WP:N. Showing that it passes WP:N invalidates the original discussion, so the deleting admin restored it without discussion, which is what the deletion policy says to do. WilyD 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • They do not establish notability in any meaningful way. They illustrate an event, but don't convey significant coverage of the topic as a whole. If some third party has written such an overview, with peer review and formal editing and cross-referencing and the like, even to the limited degree of, say,
      Cuba-Pakistan relations, I'd be inclined to agree that there is significant coverage of the (say it with me now) topic. These two articles on isolated events don't cut it. --BlueSquadronRaven
      15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - notable subject,
  as established in article. It was restored by the deleting admin because the deletion arguments presented in the first AFD are no longer valid. DRV explicitly asks you to talk to the deleting admin first, but pot shots like that are always welcome. WilyD
  21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due (rapidly diminishing) respect, the simple addition of the two external links actually make the article worse, not better, as they are not used as references for anything in the text. If you are going to take the effort to find news articles, don't be lazy about writing something to go with them or they only serve to obfuscate any sort of notability. And again, there is nothing here so important in history that they cannot be comfortably contained in the above mentioned "Foreign relations of..." articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The article already contains useful and relevant (try to claim that foreign embassies aren't...) information that can definitely be verified (it's just a matter of finding the right government website) and the references provided prove that actual active relations between those two countries exist and that there is something to say about them, so the article has room for improvement, and the start is already better than nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubZog (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails
  WP:N, no real sources on this topic are available. Yilloslime ^T_C
  23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. How is it that this article was article was AfDed in March--with the result being "delete"--and yet we're here discussing deletion again? Was it not deleted last time for some reason even though the consensus was "deletion"?

As noted in the nomination, the article was deleted and then restored. The basis of the restoration was the finding of the two external links to news articles by WilyD that are now in that section of the article. As above, I think this only goes against

WP:NOTNEWS and does nothing to establish the notability of the subject. Indeed, I think the only thing that has been asserted about its notability is that it should be notable based on the article's title, but lacking any substance should be merged with other articles. --BlueSquadronRaven

01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• • It was deleted last time because
    notability was not shown. I showed MBisanz the proof of it's notability, so he restored it, since the rationale for deletion "nonnotable" was demonstratably false. WilyD
    10:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the mere existence of bilateral relations isn't notable. Still, let's examine the two links to see if something makes this relationship notable. Link 1 tells us that Greece and Jamaica hope to sign a trade agreement in 2005 (anachronistic, and thousands of these exist, and are not notable, instead forming part of the normal course of international relations), and that "several" Greek shipowners changed their
  puff piece about the Greek Ambassador to Jamaica: "the congenial Greek"; "He loves the fact that he can learn and deepen his knowledge of the foreign cultures while doing his job"; "'Next time for a better picture, we can get some ladies,' he joked again". Must've been a slow news day in Jamaica. So if we are to integrate these links into the article, we get: "Greece and Jamaica have relations. They might have signed a trade agreement in 2005, and the Jamaican consul in Greece persuaded several Greek shipowners to fly the flag of Jamaica as a flag of convenience. The Greek Ambassador to Jamaica is, according to the Jamaica Gleaner, 'very down-to-earth...a regular guy who just happens to be an ambassador'". Not especially compelling, is it? In fact, this verges on the trivial, so let's delete for a second time. - Biruitorul ^Talk
  02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The mere existance of bilateral relations IS notable. Foreign relations directly affect people's lives, and even though it is not a topic that is likely to receive extensive media coverage, this is just because the topic isn't scandalous or "exciting" in any other way, yet this doesn't make it irrelevant. Questions may arise about verifiability, yet surely not about notability. However, I think that the sources given provide enough information to write a reasonable article. DubZog (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. With all respect to
  CSD G4 as there's no substantive change from the deleted version - it would have been better to userfy the article and only restore it once it was significantly different. Nick-D (talk
  ) 08:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It was previous deleted for nonnotability - since the references added establish notability
    the usual way, the old decision was invalid on it's face. It's why the deletion policy is written this way. WilyD
    10:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This should have gone to DRV if you thought that the initial deletion was mishandled or you should have taken the time to substantively improve the article if you've found meaningful sources - I note that you told User:MBisanz that you were going to do this when you asked them to restore the article but have not done so since it was restored. By the way, can you please link to WP:N directly and explain why the references meet the standard it sets rather than just write 'the usual way' - this is pretty vague, especially as editors are questioning the significance of the sources you're finding in this and similar AfDs. Could you please explain how these kind of stories constitute 'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject' and the rest of WP:N? Nick-D (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • That's explicitly what DRV says not to do. It says to talk to the closing administrator - and MBisanz saw clearly that it was deleted for failing WP:N, but since it meets WP:N, it could be restored. DRV explicitly tells one off if they don't ask the closing admin to do exactly that first. I most certainly did not tell MBisanz I'd go to DRV if it was restored, he recommended AFD, though I knew perfectly well someone who believes bilateral relations are inherently nonnotable would take it there anyways if they thought they had a shot in hell of getting it deleted (and maybe even if not).
      • And no, I won't insult editors by taking them through how an article with in depth, secondary, independent sources spanning a range of time meets WP:N. Any editor can easily examine that themselves and see that they do. It is self explanitory that "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - there's nothing more to say. WilyD 12:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the two counties don't even have embassies in each other's countries besides "honorary" political officials. Tavix |  Talk  22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete yes, if even the two countries don't care about this non-notable relationship, why should wikipedia? No reliable independent sources establish this as notable.
  talk
  ) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I made a few improvements to the article to add a little content, which in my opinion is relevant to this deletion discussion. Now, if the article were deleted, useful and verifiable information about the foreign relations between the two countries would be probably lost from wikipedia, as I can't see any obvious options of merging it with something else... DubZog (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What? It's a useless content fork. Relevant information on this non-notable "relationship?" Belongs in

talk

) 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

By your arguement any "bilateral relations" article could be separated into two halves and the information could be provided under the "foreign relations" articles of the countries involved. However, this is not very convenient for the users, who are specifically interested in the relations between those two countries... so as long an article on the relations between those two countries that meets wikipedia standards can be written I can't see a reason to fight against it. And in this particular case I cannot see what makes this article not meet wikipedia standards. Besides, I would think that including specific data on the annual trade balance between Greece all other countries would crowd the "Foreign relations of Greece" article with loads of numerical data, which would be quite bad for its readability, yet to a specific bilateral relations' article it fits in well. DubZog (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree; spin-offs like this are meant to protect against the kind of problem that appears on

Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries, not to mention that keeping two unlinked carbon copies of the same content can be quite a tedious job. —Admiral Norton ^(talk

) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just empirically I believe that right now Foreign Relations of X with Y articles are not synchronized at all with Foreign Relations of Y with X, when the overlapping content should be more-or-less identical. For example Foreign relations of Zambia and Foreign relations of Zimbabwe. There is no reason to imagine that this complete misalignment will get better over time and not worse. Hilary T (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently there is too much notable information to delete and a merger with Foreign relations of Jamaica or Foreign relations of Greece would make quite a dangerous precedent. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of more than one or two news articles talking about these relations. The fact that there are relations between the countries does not make those relations notable. Timmeh! 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not seeing WP:N met. The trade amounts, lack of embassies, and no clearly notable relations between the two indicate no inherent notability either. Willing to change if anything significant added. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Admiral Norton -Marcusmax(speak) 00:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as an excellent almanacical entry. No point in duplicating the info in two articles. As an almanac entry it doesn't have to assert notability the way a biography does. Wikipedia is a reference work, not an encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)