Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Norway 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. I have to discount Stifle's comment, which is a mere link to a policy page. I'm not discounting the appeals to the length of the diplomatic relationship, since it represents a not unreasonable inference that relevant material exists. (Although I'd rather we not rely on such inferences in deletion discussions, I can't dismiss the argument out of hand.) Sandstein 06:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Norway relations

)

No hint this pairing may be notable, so we should delete. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep some evidence here of notable relations [1] LibStar (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once one strips away the fluff about that ceremonial visit, one finds a key quote: "I didn't know much about Bulgarian-Norwegian business relations because they are quite limited". A small trading partnership does not equate a notable relationship, which isn't covered anywhere. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable in the
usual way. I see no argument for why this is a highly unusual article that merits the highly irregular treatment proposed by Biruitorul. See [2] + [3] + [4] + [5] + [6] + [7] + [8] + [9] + [10] + [11] + [12] + [13] + [14] + [15] + [16] + [17] + [18] + [19] + [20] + [21] + [22] and so forth. Wily D 17:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- The usual prioritization of trivia. Visits, memoranda, glowing interviews by diplomats are news, and rather trivial news at that, which we would never normally cover. Care to find an article actually dealing with the history of these relations, as opposed to what you think constitutes notable facets of that relationship, in breach of
  WP:SYNTH? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Making false claims doesn't bolster your argument. What we're talking about here is far more notable, and far more important, than the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia. None of this can reasonably be described as wikt:trivial, for any understood meaning of the word. And please read' SYNTH before trying to apply it, it isn't even vaguely applicable here. Wily D 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure it does. You're taking random bits of news and making it appear as though they all constitute part of "Bulgaria–Norway relations", even though no one source deals with that particular subject in depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
not a directory. Foreign relations of the 203 sovereign countries are best discussed in the article about the country, or a standalone article if a major country, rather than in 20,000 such binary stubs. A link to the country's foreign ministry website will provide more up-to-date info than a robostub created and neglected. Edison (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations has some helpful guidelines about when a set of bilateral relations is really notable. This doesn't meet any of them. Locke9k (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since (at least some of) the sources found by WilyD suggest that this relationship is meaningful. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial non-notable relationship. I am not swayed by the foreign investment material. Gigs (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial non-notable relationship. I am not swayed by the state visit of the Bulgarian President to Norway. Wuzzifier (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User indef blocked, see ANI thread --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:12, 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

Keep - 102-year relationship, 2 x resident ambassidor. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't maintain an embassy in a nation for that long, without there being some notable relationship going on. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 04:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Facts, please, not speculation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - wikilawyering Dream Focus 03:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Sorry, the burden of proof is on "keep" voters to provide sources demonstrating notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,
talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The two countries have a diplomatic relations relationship over 100 years. AdjustShift (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the tree in my backyard has been growing for over 100 years. We need facts that validate the notability of the relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, partly per WilyD. Although not covered in the article, Bulgaria became highlighted in the Norwegian press back in 2001 due to an unusually large number of asylum seekers from Bulgaria. This event went over several weeks (if not months) and was well-covered in media [23] [24]. Also, the fact that the Norwegian encyclopedia Store Norske Leksikon mention the mutual embassies between Bulgaria and Norway in their "Bulgaria" article [25] persuades me that mentioning those embassies somewhere is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the latter point:
  Diplomatic missions of Bulgaria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete this entirely unsourced stub, for which i can find no sources that discuss this relationship. That the words "bulgaria" and "norway" sometimes cohabit the same newspaper article is not the same thing as substantial coverage about the topic of this encyclopedia article. Since there is no substantial coverage about this relationship it should be deleted.
talk) 13:06, 6 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.