Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Sweden 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. Nja 247 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Belarus–Sweden relations

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

Aside from propaganda releases by the Minsk regime and a "memorandum of understanding" (which is a trivial document, and wholly unremarkable), there isn't much there. There is great scope for expansion of Belarus and the European Union, but as the Swedes themselves admit in a summary of relations so boring I'd be surprised if you got to the end, "The level of present Belarusian-Swedish bilateral relations is determined by the general EU position towards Belarus". To the extent Belarus has special relations with Sweden (which it doesn't seem to), those can be mentioned in the Belarus-EU article. Biruitorul Talk 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As always, I commend Biruitorul for bringing this one to the table; however, in this instance, there's plenty to support an article. Sweden and Belarus are relatively close-- Stockholm and Minsk are a little more than 500 miles apart.  The two have been working for years on strengthening their relations, such that Sweden opened an embassy in Minsk just last year ([| Opening of Swedish embassy in Minsk in 2008 to speed up visa issue procedures).  I'll do a Rod Serling and say, "submitted for your approval":
 * | Sweden and Belarus to cooperate in agricultural equipment; *| Belarus and Sweden are satisfied with cooperation development in environmental protection sphere and emphasize necessity to expand it;
 * | Belarusian forestry ministry, Swedish Forest Agency sign cooperation memorandum;
 * | Belarusian opposition reports support, understanding from Sweden; *| (finance minister) Stefan Eriksson: lack of funding hampers opening of Swedish embassy in Belarus; *| IKEA may open shopping centre in Minsk (regarding increased Swedish investment in Belarus); *| Swedish business associations set to assist to development of similar institutions in Belarus; As always, I think the measure of whether two nations have a relationship is whether there is evidence that either nation is interested in its relationship with the other. Mandsford (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, nothing per se about the relationship; some sources are from Belarus, which makes them suspect given the nature of that country's regime; for the rest, it's news we'd never be covering elsewhere and taken out of context, but in extremis could easily be dealt with at Belarus and the European Union - perhaps separate sections there for more notable relations of Belarus with EU members? - Biruitorul Talk 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources. International cooperation in projects is notable. DGG (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources presented by Mandsford demonstrate the article exceeds the usual inclusion criterion of WP:N. No argument has been presented to suggest this is a highly unusual article that merits highly irregular treatment, nor can I devise one. Wily D  19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability and Wikipedia is not a directory. Better to mention foreign relations in the article about each country than to have an article about each "relationship" they have with one of the other 203 sovereign countries, since such bilateral article could total 20,000 or so for all pairs of countries. They may have cooperated in some projects. that is a normal part of being a country. We do not need tens of thousands of such articles any more than we need articles about every celebrity's "relationships" with every other celebrity, or "relationships" or contracts between large companies, which also exist and both of which have more news coverage than most of these "relationships." Check Jennifer Aniston dating. Lots more references. Edison (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile this statement with the facts that it passes the standards of WP:N and is not in any way a directory? Wily D 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Edison. We don't need to create articles like this merely because they pass WP:N and avoid duplicating information in two places, because (1) Wikipedia is not paper and (2) there is an endless supply of free labour to keep the separate articles in synch. I also commend Buitorul for nominating these articles faster than cruft can be added to them. Wuzzit (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WikiProject International relations has some well thought out advice (see WikiProject International relations) for when bilateral relations between two nations are notable. This article does not even assert to meet any of them. Locke9k (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As asserted above, these countries have strong trade and diplomatic relations, meeting two of the criteria set out in WProject IR. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient reliable sources to show a significant relationship. Smile a While (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, until and unless expanded and sourced (get on with it if you're so intent on keeping it!). This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sweden and Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt are central in the international Anti-Belarus(sia) campaign. ...and of course, 2 x resident ambassadors-- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs some of the information mentioned above in the article itself. From what other editors have found, it is clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  03:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable intersection of countries. Nothing more to state than the location of embassies, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources have been found that address this relationship. That an MOU has been signed here or there on deconflicting tax regimes and so-forth are not the stuff of notable bilateral relationships.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:16, 7 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.