Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Estonia 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. After reading all of the comments in this discussion, it's fairly apparent that the consensus is to keep this x-y relations article. Although there are mixed opinions, there was no consensus to delete, and the keep reasons are strong.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia–Estonia relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

another random combination. non resident embassies noting that Estonia covers Australia from its embassy in Tokyo! most of the article is from a primary source (Aust foreign ministry). two way trade is AUD29M = USD23M (which is a very tiny fraction of Australia's total trade). Australia has a working holiday scheme with most European Union nations so that's not really noteworthy. almost all coverage is about sport or in multilateral context except the first article of this search. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are guilty of just looking at the first 10 results of a Google search again. The same search was able to pull together a significant article. You give the impression of due diligence by performing a search, but are making no effort to look beyond the first page, and you are denigrating what you find there on the first page. It is called the strawman fallacy when used in rhetorical debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Australia was the only Western country to break ranks and briefly recognise the Soviet annexation of Estonia (and the other Baltic states) as de jure for 17 months between July 1974 to December 1975 by the Whitlam government, while most other countries continued to recognise the independent Estonian diplomatic missions. This recognition of the Soviet annexation by the Whitlam government was repudiated by the subsequent Fraser government and relations with the independent Estonian consular representative re-established. This article has great potential for expansion. See this body of literature here. --Martintg (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. For an example of close relationship, consider thelist of countries whose citizens are eligible for Australian Working Holiday visa. Estonia is among these 19 countries -- roughly one tenth of all the countries in the world. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * a working holiday visa scheme is not enough to establish notable relations, Aust has one with Belgium, New Zealand has one with Norway and Mexico but none of these country pair articles exist. I doubt that's enough for a bilateral article to exist. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter how many grains of sand you examine, none of them makes a hill. And yet, a sandhill is nothing but grains of sand. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * with reasoning like that, not sure how it's adding to a concise discussion. you need more reliable sources to prove WP:N. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * delete Permutation and combination not much better than random two nations. Collect (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Martintg. Stepopen (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination Capitalismojo (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This page looks completely fine. Plenty of refs, well developed, obviously notable. Absolutely no good reason to delete this page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. Too much is made of a NOTNEWS|news item about 1974. Edison (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think something moves beyond a news item when they start writing chapters and books about it. --Martintg (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * keep this is not a random combination, as some claimed here. The relationship is also notable for the Whitlam affair (note that Baltic emigrées' protests are sometimes considered one of the reasons of Whitlam's fall, albeit a minor one of course). -- Miacek (t) 08:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per User:Martintg above. If people have written books on a topic, it's probably notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep per book sources and well-attested historical impact. — CharlotteWebb 12:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A shining example of why the rush to delete these articles is often misplaced. I still can't fathom the prejudice against these bilateral articles. Why the nominator thinks the location of the embassy has anything to do with meeting WP:N is a mystery. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the fact that Estonia sees very little need to attend official meetings with the Australian Government or to assist the 8000 odd Estonians living in Australia. it's not a short flight from Tokyo-Sydney-Canberra. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any depth, regardless of how much can be written about a cultural exchange program. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources found by Martintg push it over the top for me. However, I think that Australia's de jure recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltics is probably best treated in either an article of its own or in Foreign relations of Australia rather than in this cruft-pile of an article. Yilloslime T C  05:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is reliable and verifiable, and I find it well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This topic is mentioned in two books, but those books discuss Australia's relations with the Baltic States, and an individual article on relations between Australia and Estonia is not warranted. The article lists: embassies/consulates; recognition/repudiation of Soviet annexation; political visit; visas arrangement; negotiations for a social security agreement; people from Estonia who settled in Australia; modest trade. There is simply nothing notable in the relations between Australia and Estonia (but an article on Australia's recognition or non-recognition of Soviet occupation may be worthwhile, although it is currently only one sentence in Baltics). Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. feydey (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep no discernible relationship to not directory,--that there are many things worth talking about is not the same as indiscriminate, but rather, proof of justification for an article. Meets WP:N. The sources are adequate, and the various sort of relations --diplomatic and other--noteworthy. I look forward to the expansion of these articles, all the thousands of them. DGG (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The content now in the article, indicates there is a notable relationship between the countries.  D r e a m Focus  16:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable relationship - as expanded clearly meets notability guidelines. Rebecca (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - A fair proportion of the references in the current version of this seem to satisfy the the notability guideline for reliable secondary sources. There might be ana rgument for combining a couple of pages to become Australia-Baltic States relations, but in the absence of any such proposal this article of itself passes the notability test. Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2009 (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.