Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austria – New Zealand 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Austria – New Zealand relations

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

non resident embassies. even the NZ govt describes relations as "not extensive" and "New Zealand's trade with Austria is small". info on tourism workers could equally to Australia. young NZers can work in most Western European countries under a working holiday visa, doesn't actually indicate much of bilateral relations. Most coverage is on a sporting or multilateral context, the first item of this search is a minor tax agreement. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Australia-New Zealand relations??? Are you kidding?!!!  They're neighbours!  They've been.... oh, what's that?  Austria?  In Europe?  Oh.  Never mind. Mandsford (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability has not been established. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets the minimal number of references to make it notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The proper search is Without the + for Austria, it gets Australia, which is why so much seemed multilateral. (I have not yet   checked them, but some seem usable)    We've been finding good stuff about half the time. Perhaps in the others, the problem is just bias in what we can search. DGG (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, No assertion of notability. PMK1 (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as usual, delete. No assertion of notability, just spewing out of as many articles as possible. Google searches are not sources. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your improvements for the "Foreign relations of ______" articles are good, but they don't make any of these debates irrelevant. Sometimes, a bilateral relationship is notable enough for its own separate article.  Sometimes, there is little information beyond what was already referred to in the articles for the two nations (in this case, Foreign relation of Austria and Foreign relations of New Zealand).  There will always be room to discuss whether the relations between two countries are notable enough for a "main article" link. Mandsford (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - government documents cannot masquerade as reliable sources; there are no such sources establishing the notability of this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 16:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Subject is notable. Just needs expansionDr. Blofeld (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should Wikipedia have articles on relationships between every single possible combination of countries? If so, I suppose this should be kept. Otherwise, how is this notable?--Susan118 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability, with ample room for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable topic, and, contrary to the recent hype, adding cruft on administrative trivia sourced from primary sources does not in any way establish notability, nor "rescue" the article. Dahn (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge The bilateral articles into one Foreign relations of country X by country article per country. Edison (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The other day, I actually met someone from Country X. She said that it's inhabited by mutants.  Mandsford (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete that some austrian's in the winter tourism industry (i.e. skiing) spend northern hemisphere summers in some southern hemisphere ski resorts, and that some smaller subset of these austrians elect to work at New Zealand ski resorts during the southern hemisphere winter, says nothing about this bilateral relationship. It might support an Austrian winter tourism workers abroad article. The primary sources in the article are mostly from the Austrian government explaining how foreigners -- among them new zealanders! -- can apply for a working holiday visa.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent coverage on the significance of the topic of the article. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:53, 14 May 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.