Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia – Sri Lanka relations (2nd nomination)

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 00:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia – Sri Lanka relations

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

this article hinges on 4 sources. 3 of these sources are from embassy/foreign ministry websites so not totally third party. one source merely confirms the existence of a non resident ambassador. the number of actual sources specifically describing Estonia – Sri Lanka relations is weak. this article is not about Sri Lanka-EU relations, just because Estonia entered the EU does not suddenly translate to more relations exist. only one real "cooperation" agreement exists. "Agreement for Co-operation Between the Estonian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce " is from 2 non official organisation not official government treaty. those wanting to argue keep should provide actual evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard Wikipedia almanac entry. I am not sure what notability is required for an almanac entry. We use government or United Nations websites for all the almanac like entries on countries and economic data. The almanac entries for townships are just census dumps. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then every bilateral pair would be notable? even though over 100 have been deleted through the AfD process? LibStar (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What good is an almanac that isn't complete? I don't know of any information that was deleted. Smaller articles were merged into larger articles on the foreign relations of those countries. So instead of one article, we duplicated the information in the two articles. Deleting the entry here just doubles the information elsewhere. Why duplicate it in two overly long lists? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

many articles were deleted though. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TITLES were deleted because the redirects for say Estonia – Sri Lanka relations could either be directed to Foreign relations of Estonia OR Foreign relations of Sri Lanka and not BOTH, so they didn't make sense to keep around. An experiment was done to make a disambiguation page with redirects to both, but they were voted down by the editors that concentrate on disambiguation. The end result was duplicating all the information into the two articles. Which made sense for the articles containing just a few sentences, the Groubani stubs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – oh for fuck's sake, LibStar. Consular relations. Overseas visits. Commercial agreements. Promotion of tourism. This. This. This. This. It is completely beyond me why anyone would make a good-faith claim that the pair's relationship is not notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer at those four sources you just dug up. They are truly pitiful. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's wrong with a source like this but if you don't like it then just make do with the consular relations, overseas visits, commercial agreements and promotion of tourism. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one that vaguely resembles a decent source (though it's about a specific event, and there's not much about the actual topic of SL-Estonia relations in general in there.) But the other three are utter shit. Why would you even bring them up here? Do you think people aren't going to check? Yilloslime ^T_C 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite good at selective ignoring, aren't you. We went from all four sources being "truly pitiful" to one of them "vaguely resembling a decent source." And you also managed to conveniently fail to notice if you don't like it then just make do with the consular relations, overseas visits, commercial agreements and promotion of tourism. So well done! ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury a reminder to be WP:CIVIL, if it's so obviously notable, it will be a unanimous keep. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so that's your reason for nominating perfectly decent articles for deletion – others will do the work for you. Great. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 08:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there appears to be virtually no trade or news of significance between the countries. Hard to see anything truly notable here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the consular relations, overseas visits, commercial agreements and promotion of tourism, quite right. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not indepth coverage and is merely mentioning Sri Lanka recognises Estonia, almost all nation states in the world recognise each other. this seems to source "Wikipedia" for its text.this is more about Iraq meeting Sri Lanka AND Estonia on the same day rather than Estonia-Sri Lanka relations. the sources are weak in establishing a notable relationship. relations exist but far from covered indepth in press. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per documented paucity of independent, reliable sources that address the topic of Estonia-Sri Lanka relations directly, in detail. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury. Ahmetyal 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Why is this article being nominated for deletion again? It received a keep in the first AfD.[1] This article was adequately cited to achieve notability and that notability does not expire. This discussion is simply a second bite at the apple.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we should be restricting how often we can nom articles for AfD. Repeated noms have been a problem, but should be used when a previously kept pages get gutted or develop serious problems. However, in this case, nominator clearly did not use the talkpage to voice concerns prior, none of those problems apply to this page, and the nominator is abusing the Afd system Outback the koala (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per treasurytags reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per treasurytag.--Blackknight12 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this one is quite a ridiculous nom. At first glance, I was skeptical, but just look at the article! The rest per Treasury, big time. Outback the koala (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems most of you have presented WP:JUSTAVOTE. I doubt you even looked at the sources Treasury found. They are weak indeed. This topic lacks indepth third party coverage. Please find some better source than Treasury than simply turning up and !voting. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simultaneously ignoring WP:AGF and WP:PERNOM is quite impressive, but I should remind you that alleging bad faith is generally unacceptable unless there is clear evidence, and it is perfectly fine to argue based on another contributor's point: "if the rationale provided in the [point] includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence [...] a simple endorsement of the [point] may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per X'" – ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 08:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have examined the sources in the article and those presented, and as much as the topic still doesn't seem notable to me, it nevertheless (a) passes the test of significant discussion in reliable independent sources and (b) the various markers that we have used to determine the notability of other bilateral relations topics (state visits, mutual embassies, significant bilateral agreements and projects). It therefore should be kept. And I'd again urge everyone participating to remain civil. We've done a LOT of bilateral relations AfDs at this point, and it's pretty clear that the community doesn't see attempts to delete them, or attempts to save them, on whatever grounds, as either foolish or in bad faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are no mutual embassies, no known visits of leaders to the other country and there is only one cooperation agreement, the other agreement is between the chambers of commerce which does not represent the official goverment. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, you're technically correct, an embassy one way and a consul the other. There have been visits of leaders but not visits by head of state. The sources details significant bilateral agreements and projects. It's all sufficient to found notability of the topic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe existence of a comprehensive set of articles provides the structural framework that facilitates and encourages further contributions. In the case of many if not most articles at Wikipedia the eventual quality is the result of a process of accretive contribution, little stone on little stone. I really don't understand why so much effort is devoted to undermining that structure. Opbeith (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, sources found by User:TreasuryTag, but without his vehemence. If they are not good enough for you, then you need to re-read WP:RS and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 23 December 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.