Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia – Sri Lanka relations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (X! · talk)  · @757  ·  17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia – Sri Lanka relations

[edit]
Estonia – Sri Lanka relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

neither country has a resident ambassador. and total trade is less than 2 million EUROs between these 2 countries (surely the richest individual Sri Lankans and Estonians invest much more). the country comparison in the article adds no real value when these figures can be obtained from the country's own article of the CIA World Factbook. a complete lack of coverage of any real bilateral relations [1]. 2 of the 3 sources listed in the article are embassy websites. there has been no state visits either. statements such as "Since Estonia’s induction into the European Union in 2004 it has had a positive affect on bilateral relations with Sri Lanka, since the EU is one of Sri Lanka’s biggest donors and trade partners" seem pure synthesis given that trade has actually decreased from pre 2004 levels. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - an absurd smattering of trivia. Yes, relations exist, but that's about all that's encyclopedically relevant (as opposed to what happened to be dug up in a Google search during an attempt to build an article around a non-existent topic). Or we can redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia, which deals in table form with this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It needs to lose the side-by-side "country comparison". However, I can see the value in a specific breakdown of what one nation imports from, or exports to, the other, along with statistics of the trade between the two. To the extent that there is such information, and it goes beyond what a mention in the FRO articles can be, then I support letting someone expand upon the subject. Mandsford (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - admittedly not the most important pair of country relations, but still there is enough notability and coverage in independent sources to have an article. Pantherskin (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
where is the evidence of significant third party coverage? 2 of the 3 references are embassy websites so not third party. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Usually I am for deletion of these "a - b relations", but this one has a bit more content then the usual stubs and some actual references. Definitely won't protest the deletion, though. --Sander Säde 09:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have deleted the side by side "country comparison", I only placed it there because articles such as Japan – United States relations, France – United States relations, United Kingdom – United States relations and Sino-American relations had it and thought it would add more information to the article. This article should stay because of the fact that Sri Lanka and Estonia both have bilateral relations with each other, no matter how much there economic relations are worth, and that both countries are seeking to further expand there relations.--Blackknight12 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. you've cited examples that are much much more notable. at least 100 of these bilateral articles have been deleted so they are not automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, Lib, that wasn't what Blacknight said. He wasn't citing the existence of other articles as a reason for keep, but rather that he had put in a table in his article because he had seen such a table in those other articles had a country-comparison table. The reason urged for keep is that both nations are seeking to further expand their relations, and I think he's making an effort to demonstrate that. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Thank you Mandsford that is exactly what I was trying to say.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, but you still haven't provided evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not as well developed as some of the others, but with a little work, and better formatting, it will be up to par. What was wrong with the side by side comparisons? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the comparison chart ... too big for such a small article, I am sure there are better ways to format it.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, a handful of minor, and quite staged, events such as visits, and a few statistics of trade concern relations that have existed less than 20 years. No cited overview of relations or their significance on the world stage. Not-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This topic falls under the general notability guidelines which require that there be direct detailed coverage of a topic in multiple reliable, independent sources if we are to have an article about it on wikipedia. I'm not seeing that for this topic.Yilloslime TC 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Estonia independent of Sri Lanka, and the other way around? There isn't an entity called "Estonia – Sri Lanka" so the government websites are each independent of the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
best reliable sources of an actual notable relationship would be some third party like a major newspaper. Government press releases almost always say "we want to increase relations/trade/tourism". LibStar (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia editor is the first party, the subject is the second party, I still say that one country is independent of the other country, and is writing objectively. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon Richard. This article is on the relations between Sri Lanka and Estonia. The Estonian and Sri Lankan governments are clearly not independent of the topic, just as a band's website is not an independent source of information about that band or its albums or concerts. Could such sources be reliable, and used as references for facts within the article? Sure. But can they be used to demonstrate notability? No. Yilloslime TC 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reliable sources "[include] but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the websites in question qualify as "reports by government agencies" is doubtful, but regardless you're quoting a piece of the WP:GNGs our of context. Sure, in general, government reports are reliable and can be used to establish notability. But in the specific case of when a government or its actions are the topic of an article, then it's website ceases to be independent. In a nutshell, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Yilloslime TC 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Richard, what does third party mean? you're not fooling us. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That says:
  • 1. any party to an incident, case, quarrel, etc., who is incidentally involved.
  • 2. (in a two-party system) a political party formed as a dissenting or independent group from members of one or both of the two prevailing major parties. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There just about seems to be enough in sources 3 and 4 to justify this article. Mah favourite (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source 3 merely reports the appointment of the ambassador who resides in Sweden not Estonia, given that there are 1000s of ambassadors worldwide I hardly say this adds significantly to proving that there are actual notable relations between these 2 countries. If it was a resident ambassador it would add to notability. Source 4 is the run of the mill "we want to increase trade/tourism/relations" news story without some real commitment like an agreement or funding. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per editor Richard Arthur Norton. I will create a tastefull Groubani style locator map for the countries later, as Im currently on my 3G connection which doesnt let me access commons. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relationship between these two countries is notable. A major news source agrees. [2] Dream Focus 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is now well developed due again to rescue by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Third party sources have been located proving verifiable existence of relations and demonstrating notability. On a side note, deletion of these "bilateral" relations articles is counterproductive to the aim of Wikipedia to provide a summary of all knowledge. I recommend the creation of an exception to the notability requirement that significant coverage exist for these articles and a restoration of the hundred or so that have been deleted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a note to say that I've reviewed RAN58's edits and I still think this topic is far from meeting the WP:GNGs. The article still has only a single independent source[3] (which looks suspiciously like a reprinted government press release, but I digress). GNGs require significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Yilloslime TC 20:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The GNG guideline clearly says "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Preferred does not mean required.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, multiple independent reliable sources exist. See The Colombo Times, The Asian Tribune, The Asian Tribune, and The Estonian Review.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - in my opinion, this relationship seems to (barely) cross the threshold of significant coverage, and weakly merits inclusion. I would not loudly protest a deletion, but I think if I were moved to choose one side, I would go with keep. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:57, 20 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estonia_–_Sri_Lanka_relations&oldid=1089933528"