Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania–Netherlands 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'm discounting the "keep" opinions by Gaius Claudius Nero, Bearian, Dr. Blofeld, Dream Focus and Outback the koala because they are not based on applicable guidelines such as WP:N or other community standards. I am also discounting the "delete" opinion by Hrafn for incivility. I am not giving particular weight to arguments based on the WP:FOR criteria, since these are not community-adopted guidelines, but neither am I discounting them. This leaves us with the following opinions to take into account when adjudicating consensus: Fut.Perf., Serpent's Choice and LibStar (delete) versus Doktor Plumbi and FeydHuxtable (keep). This 3-2 outcome does not represent consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  08:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Albania–Netherlands relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another bout of mechanical creation of useless new "X–Y relations" substubs. Next to no non-trivial content. Didn't we finally reach some project-wide consensus that this type of stub is not wanted? WikiProject International relations has recommendations on when and how such articles should be written; these standards are certainly not met here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubs are for being expanded, i can't write whole albanian part on my own, luckly you and the others can help --Vinie007 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, your argument isn't right. Please read the article of the relation, and the guide: They have been engaged in a war (not fully at war, but see Dutch military mission in Albania, They have been/are in an alliance (see NATO), read article of Albanian army. --Vinie007 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The concern about the article is legitimate, but I agree with Vinie007: Condition#3 of Bilateral relations (They have been/are in an alliance) is satisfied. The Dutch military mission in Albania was clearly a strong alliance between the Albanian and the Dutch crowns in 1913-1914. As far as the "triviality" of the subject is concerned, I don't believe this article deserves more space than the relationship between the Netherlands and Albania. There are 50k Albanian emigrants in the Netherlands, and both countries have important import-exports, aside from their alliance in 1913-1914. In addition it is important to point out the relationship between Albania and the Netherlands for the implications brought by the refusal of the Netherlands to sign the SAA with Serbia because of their lack of compliance to bring Mr. Mladic to the Hague tribunal. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not certain that the Dutch participation in the International Gendarmerie constitutes either a war or an alliance in the sense intended by the WikiProject guideline.  The Great Powers ambassadors chose the Netherlands for the police mission in Albania specifically because there was no treaty relationship between the countries; the Dutch were considered neutral in Albanian affairs, and -- as far as I can tell from available sourcing -- that participation engendered no lasting alliance; the Dutch simply went home when they were done.  By means of comparison, and at the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, I don't think there's a risible claim to an Iran-Sweden relations article, although Sweden performed exactly the same role in what was then Persia, at the same time.  Nor does the revolt in Albania during the Dutch Military Mission constitute in any real sense a "war" between Albania and the Netherlands.  Certainly, there are no evident sources that claim it does.  If I misunderstood the intent of the guideline conditions, I'd certainly be open to re-evaluating this position, but at the moment, I just don't see how this meets the standard. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: You say that the participation of the Netherlands engendered no lasting alliance. Condition#3 of Bilateral relations simply says (They have been/are in an alliance), it doesn't necessarily warrant a lasting alliance, but simply that they were once in alliance or they are now in an alliance. You may not deny that from the moment the Dutch mission was established, an alliance was set up between the two crowns, the Albanian monarchy and the Dutch one. The choice of the Netherlands which had been neutral until then, doesn't mean that the alliance wasn't established from that point onwards, for a certain period of time. And I don't see how the inexistance of an article Iran-Sweden relations should undermine the argument of having an Albanian-Dutch one. We are considering only point 3, not other points of Bilateral relations: there have never been wars between the Netherlands and Albania, on the opposite, good relations, which were started by the Dutch mission, that was key to the creation of the state of Albania.--Doktor Plumbi (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think the Dutch Military Mission constitutes an alliance at all. It wasn't a negotiated agreement between the Albanian and Dutch governments.  There was no treaty.  When Albania was occupied by the Central Powers during WWI, the Netherlands did not intervene (indeed, they remained officially neutral throughout the war).  The modern equivalent to the Dutch Military Mission is a UN Peacekeeping Force.  If a country, under the auspices of the UN, engages in police action in a third party state, there isn't any expectation that that constitutes an alliance -- or something sufficient to base a bilateral relations article on. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't see why this would be deleted. With some expansion it could be a great article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * because it fails WP:GNG. this is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of the WP:GNG does it fail? And how is that a WP:ILIKEIT argument? It sounds like you're saying you don't like it.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * please provide evidence of significant coverage of specific bilateral relations. all the article has is multilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: (1) On the basis of past outcomes, almost all bilateral relations between European countries articles have been kept. (2) The Netherlands appears to have been instrumental in the independence of Albania, as it was for the United States; its early recognition paved the way for other nations' bilateral relations. (3) There is a lot more to be added, and this can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many bilateral relations topics betweeen European countries are notable; not all are. There are (depending how you count transcontinental countries and so forth) about 50 countries in Europe.  There neither are nor should be (50 x 49) / 2 = 1225 articles as a result.  Even within Europe, many pairings simply lack notability.  As for point #2 (or #3), where are the sources?  If reliable third-party authors agreed that Dutch political recognition was "instrumental" in Albanian independence, that might led credence to the topic's notability.  But I don't see that in a source. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep Per Gaius.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This book contains a bit about the role of the Netherlands in the Greek–Albania dispute. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: yet another stringing together of isolated tangential and/or trivial mentions in an attempt to give a pretence of a relationship where no substantive relationship exists.If this had the potential to be "be a great article", it wouldn't be currently based upon such marginal bottom-of-the-barrel-scrapings. It seems that citizens of two countries need only sneeze in the same room for an 'X-Y relations' article to be created. That past AfDs allowed themselves to be bamboozled by such shenanigans does not mean that we should continue the idiocy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep One nation helps another in its creation/independence, then its a notable relationship. Them sending people over to help prevent anarchy is rather important.   D r e a m Focus  12:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim that a brief (well under a year) mission, nearly a century ago, to help set up a police force, in the Provisional Government of Albania, had a significant impact that endured through a peasant revolt and ensuing imprisonment of most of the officers, their replacement with Austrian/German officers, the Principality of Albania, the Albanian Republic, the Albanian Kingdom, Albania under Italy, Albania under Germany, the Socialist People's Republic of Albania & post-Communist Albania is both ludicrously tendentious and an insult to our intelligence. Notable . Close to notable . In the same galaxy as notable . Can see notable through a powerful telescope on the night sky . HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, but you made me LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Involved in a military operation is notable. Whether the outcome was successful or not is not relevant.   D r e a m Focus  02:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral - on the one hand, Albania and the Netherlands have no current significant diplomatic relations. On the other, the Netherlands has had more important historical involvement with Albania. I'm leaning towards suggesting that this article should be deleted and replaced by one detailing the Netherland's relationship with the Provisional Government. Anthem of joy (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - alminac entry standard for all encyclopedias. Expand the article, don't delete it. Outback the koala (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. the article merely confirms a little bit of interaction. most of the interaction is in a multilateral not bilateral context. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin not all bilaterals are inherently notable or form part of an almanac. a number of users have used this as an argument when over 200 bilaterals have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? Some of the ones nominated got deleted, others have been kept.  During one mass nomination spree, guidelines were suggest by many, and then they were made.  Most of the keeps in this AFD have stated it meets those guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  10:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dream focus. There's at least one whole book specificaly on the Dutch help to Albania in 1913. For details of the modern relationship see  'On Dutch Albanian Friendship' in "To Albania with Love". FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. The entire book is certainly not about this topic.  "On Dutch-Albanian Friendship" is a 3-page section (beginning p.37), which doesn't do anything to dispel my belief that the guideline isn't met here.  It discusses a workshop in 1999 in which "ten parliamentarians from Albania" attended a workshop in the Hague, along with some Dutch legislators.  Nor was it an official government function, but one "organized by the East/West Parliamentary Practice Foundation," which doesn't appear to even approach being a notable organization.  It also discusses another seminar, this time attended by "a group of ten representatives from several Albanian municipalities and the Albanian Association of Municipalities, headed by Albania's Deputy Minister of Local Government."  Although I didn't write the guideline on notability of bilateral relations, I cannot envision this as being the sort of event that constitutes "an alliance" under that guideline.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am involved editor who wrote following articles related to the topic of this debate:
 * International Gendarmerie
 * International Commission of Control
 * Peasant Revolt in Albania
 * Bilateralism means: political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states.
 * The Principality of Albania, established in February/March 1914, did not exist as sovereign state when Netherlands gave its soldiers to help Great Powers in October/November 1913 and during next four or five months after that. The International Gendarmerie did not support Provisional Government of Albania. On the contrary. The International Commission of Control and International Gendarmerie forced Ismail Qemali to step aside and leave Albania. In case of the establishing and functioning of the International Gendarmerie there simply were no "bilateral relations between Albania and the Netherlands". Great Powers needed neutral soldiers to take care about law enforcement in future Principality of Albania and Netherland accepted to help Great Powers. The International Gendarmerie was subordinated to the International Commission of Control until German prince Prince of Wied took the throne in March 1914. Soon population of Albania started revolt - Peasant Revolt in Albania. Dutch mission together with Kosovo kachak forces of Isa Boletini tried to fight against people of Albania and failed.
 * My comment does not mean that I support deletion of the article. Maybe there are some political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states Albania and Netherland that justify existence of this article. But in case of the International Gendarmerie there were no bilateral relations between Albania and Netherlands. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.