Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark–Nicaragua 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. Courcelles 19:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Nicaragua relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

although article claims Denmark gives a lot of aid (although many countries do give aid to Nicaragua) there is not substantial third party coverage of the relations between these 2 countries. [1]. the external link provided in article is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 07:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 07:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 07:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep a cursory google search revealed this and this. That is indeed notable third party coverage. It is actually quite rare for a country to withdraw aid from another and the economist suggests it is political, making it even more notable. I'd suggest you withdraw the nomination and look a little harder for sources on obviously notable topics before bringing them here next time.--TM 07:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that's only 2 sources, countries decrease and increase foreign aid all the time, certainly if this was covered in multiple sources and also covering multiple aspects of relations it may be notable. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only two sources? Well someone was listening in maths class! ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 09:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per independent third party coverage such as this – ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 09:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the reliable and verifiable sources that support notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no third party sources cited in article. The two third party sources mentioned above are neither prominent, extensive (a paragraph each), and in fact only document the ceasation of relations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{
squeal 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The two sources in the article are
squeal 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The articles are not primary sources. The news site is not run by the Danish foreign ministry, nor by the Nicaraguan equivalent. I don't know why you would say such a thing. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the two references in the article are primary. They consist of links to the Danish embassy website and the Nicaraguan embassy website.
verbalize 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe it's quite common for news articles about a subject to be largely based on information from that subject. What sort of "reference" do you expect those journalists to use, other than the relevant aid authorities? Wisden? Bradshaw's? Heat magazine? Are you for real? ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 15:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snottywong: I think Treasury is attempting to convince you that a couple of single-paragraph pieces in some obscure news-aggregation site (see links above) amounts to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote, rather than taking a glance and then spending twenty minutes thinking up so-called witticisms satirising it, you would understand that I was simply trying to point out that they are third-party sources. In my dialogue with Snottywong, I never once mentioned the word "significant" – nor "notability" – in fact, all I did was state that they are reliable third-party sources. Which nobody could plausibly deny. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Kindly keep a
WP:GNG (from which my above quotation was taken), and familiarise yourself with the difference between "significant" and "trivial" coverage. (iii) I would not ~~'cast pearls before the swine' (to use a well-known adage) by wasting~~ [waste] a witticism on you, nor would I take twenty minutes to think of one. (iv) Please don't waste my time by posting on my usertalk that you've posted something here -- that's what watchlists are for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:GNG, and my discussion with Snottywong was not about the GNG. It was about one specific question: are the sources provided, whether trivial or significant, independent of the subject? And that's what we were discussing, as you would have noticed if you read it. (And that's what {{talkback}} is for.) ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Taking these two sources together, you'd be able to write a single sentence: "The Danish government reduced its aid from $34.6 million for 2009 to $26 million for 2010, and later announced that it would be ceasing aid altogether thereafter, in order to concentrate on aid to Africa." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not sure why this has blown up, but I'll try to explain the rationale for my !vote as clearly as possible. There are two sets of sources that I'm talking about. The first set are the sources that are already in the article (i.e. go to the article, find the "References" section, see the two sources there). Those sources are
comment 16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The topic seems easy to improve and I have added some material supported by a good citation. The article should therefore be kept in accordance with our
disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree the article should be kept, but alleging
"disruptive editing" is way over the top. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 12:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Deletion would obviously be "disrupting progress toward improving an article". We are expected to make policy-based arguments here and this is our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, you seem to regularly use the statement "Deletion would obviously be "disrupting progress toward improving an article" without addressing how an article meets WP:N, WP:GNG or another notability guideline. most articles can be "improved" with more info, the question is their notability not ability to be improved. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question devotes a whole 1/3 of a sentence to Denmark's donation to Nicaraguan mine-clearing. This is 'trivial' coverage as that term is defined in
WP:GNG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

No, that item tells us that Denmark and Nicaragua had bilateral relations for this purpose and that the sum of money was $1.8M, which would usually be considered non-trivial. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "A billion here, a billion there -- soon it adds up to real money". (ii) But regardless, it is the triviality of the coverage that is at issue, not that of the sum involved (which therefore was not the thing to be demonstrated). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triviality is not a matter of the word count as it is possible to talk at great length without saying much. It is more the salience and substance which matters. In this case, we have a substantial fact which testifies to the notice which is paid to the relations between these countries. It is by no means all - it is just a token of what may be found when a brief search is made. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triviality is a matter of DEPTH OF COVERAGE -- and your source has NONE! "Denmark contributed 1.8 million bilateral basis" is ALL your source says on the subject. THIS IS TRIVIAL COVERAGE! And bringing up "talk at great length without saying much" just adds insult to injury. "In this case, we have a substantial fact which testifies to the notice which is paid to the relations between these countries." = mendacious bloviation. We have what, in international financial terms, is a very small sum, which "testifies" to your make mountain out of any old molehill to confuse an AfD style of discourse (exemplified also by your accusations of disruption). Four words and one number is not "substantial coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, I assume that you've gone and read all the sources I added here and here – perhaps you could explain in what way they constitute trivial coverage? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 13:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Where you provided a link, yes (Stokke et al provides a single paragraph on aid). Where you present just a laundry list of titles, lacking any information as to their contents, or even an ISBN or other identifying information, then no. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stokke's "single paragraph" concerns a party-dividing political controversy in Denmark regarding their position on Nicaragua, which is clearly significant coverage.
My "laundry list" contains clear citations enabling anybody to trace the articles concerned. They are all available on JSTOR. They are all available direct from the journals I clearly identified them as coming from. If you are either
unable to carry out this simple operation, that's your problem, not mine. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 14:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
(i) As I did not nominate this artticle for deletion,
WP:COMPETENCE seems to be trying to suggest). (iv) I would suggest you cease and desist throwing fuel on the flamewar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
(i) I apologise for that confusion. However, you are arguing for the article to be deleted, and if you refuse to look at the sources which the opposing side has presented, that is highly irresponsible. (ii) So
Whatever. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 14:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

(edit conflict)I have no access to that full journal article, so cannot make much comment, the abstract however is not promising -- it suggests a very generalised, global overview. If you consider it to be "comprehensive" on this topic, then I would suggest that you use it as a cited source for adding information to the article, thus demonstrating its relevance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. So the reason you didn't look at the sources is because you have no access to those journals. Not because I failed to list the ISBN. Not because they were "poorly documented". But because you don't have access. For future reference, the normal thing to do would be to just say that, rather than trying to blame the person who provided the citations.
Now, you could request me to email you the PDFs. Or you could head over to the

resource exchange and ask someone there to help you.
Or, you could cast aspersions on the sources, without even making an effort to get to read them, although that really doesn't seem like a constructive approach to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 15:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Treasury: kindly find some other venue in which to reinflate your ego, rather than trying to score petty points and demanding that I respond to your every petty comment. The reason that I didn't look at those sources originally, was that they were a dense mangle of text, making it hard to even separate the references out from each other, or which pieces would make for the easiest search (hence my ISBN comment). My reaction to them was roughly analogous to

WP:TLDNR. Given you went to the trouble of separating out Zelinsky, I went to the trouble of looking it up on Google Scholar. I found that it was behind a paywall, and that I could only access the abstract. I am now sick of the sight of you (thanks both to your behaviour here, and on my talkpage), and really don't want further contact. If you really think your sources are the 'bee's knees', then use them to add SIGNIFICANT coverage to the article, and stop pestering me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"Dense mangle of text" – do you find it hard to distinguish between full stops and commas then? It must make life quite difficult for you...
If you're sick at the sight of me, that is your privilege; however, the notability criteria do not recognise that as a valid factor. The sources I have clearly listed provide significant coverage; if you are either too lazy or too incompetent to chase them up then you should strike your !vote since its basis has now been called into question. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and Hrafn has ignored this direct question. So we can assume the answer. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn would respond considerably quicker if he didn't have somebody continually distracting him by posting unnecessarily on his talkpage. Treasury can "assume" whatever
WP:BOLLOCKS he likes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Yet another source—Western Middle Powers & Global Poverty: The Determinants of the Aid Policies of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden (edited by Olav Stokke) [2] has the following to say: "The only recent, active, political issue with respect to the choice of recipient countries has been Danish aid to Nicaragua. The Danish Government, supported by the Social Democrats, has opposed untied grant assistance to Nicarague with the argument that this would be to politicize Danish aid, as this kind of assistance is reserved for low-income countries and Nicaragua, according to international statistics, belongs to the group of middle-income countries [...] This is a complicated case of internal party conflict among Social Democrats, as those who manifestly uphold the principle of reserving aid for low-income countries are at the same time those who are positive to aid to Nicarague. This group has correctly, but so far with no effect, referred to the clause in the 1982 report which says that transitional assistance may be given to countries in critical situations even when these countries are not low-income countries."
I suppose that that is trivial coverage, too, Hrafn? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 13:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another source—the 1999 Danish NGO Impact Study contains both a short and an "in-depth" example of Danish operations in Nicaragua. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury and plenty of independent sources exist on the topic. Outback the koala (talk) 08:06, 22 November 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.