Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Ukraine 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. No point continuing - article has clearly been raised to meet WP:N and the discussion is unlikely to have any other outcome - consider this per WP:SNOW and any dissenters can go straight to WP:DRV if they are truly unhappy with the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Belgium–Ukraine relations

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

whilst these countries have embassies, most of the relations happens in a Ukraine-EU context or Ukraine-multilateral context. the Belgian foreign ministry doesn't say much about the actual bilateral relationship between the 2 countries LibStar (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the usual reasons. Are these things auto-generated? JJL (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable or non-existent, flags here Drawn Some (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Do I have to type it all out again? There are no verifiable secondary sources and only a directory entry of the location of its embassies for content. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:NOTDIR. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the work of Dr. Blofeld. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of third-party sources providing significant coverage. - Biruitorul Talk 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly information exists. Has anybody considered searching in the relative languages? I find it funny how people will vote delete for articles on real world relations and cite 101 reasons why it fails to meet guidelines but will then continue to support the existence of unreferenced fictional cruft with no metnion of the serious issues they have. As encyclopedians you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment whilst you have cited the Ukranian foreign ministry, I found very little on the Belgian foreign ministry (which I cited and they translate everything into English). the issue is that these are primary sources, there is very little third party coverage of their relations. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Politically maybe not, economically these countries have major ties. I'll dig around for some further sources. IN the manufacturing sector contemporary trade between these two nations is huge and a Belgian firm has a 34% share in the Ukrainian beer market. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 34%! that is amazingly high! LibStar (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The Belgian investors have formed alliances with other companies and are dominating the market. They own Stella Artois in the Ukraine and various other notables by intergrating companies, kind of like a Korean chaebol or Japanese conglomerate. I think Belgium and Ukraine are two major nations and should be a notable article. However I also have concerns about some of the smaller more obscure nations like Bhutan-Kosovo relations for example. Either way I also LibStar am not happy with the way in which these articles were started with little content. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded this article and actually nominated it for a DYK so can we please end this AFD? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please no. I'd love to see a DYK from a page going through AfD. (Even funnier would be a Featured Article going through AfD.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Today's featured article went through an AfD back in the day!  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of pigs running around it, and Leffe too; I like it. What -- those aren't valid reasons? Oh all right, RS tell us that there are notable things (not all of which involve pigs) going on between these two nations. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - greatly expanded since the nomination. Still not brilliantly sourced, but one wouldn't expect to find a huge amount in the English speaking world about relations between these two countries, and I think there is probably enough sourcing there now. My main concern is that the article may now be giving a misleading impression of the importance of the links between the two, but lacking comparative statistics, that's only a guess. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Why is this even up for deletion? Its an article about the relations between two countries, it's clearly notable. Perhaps some sources from people of these countries would help, but the article is more than sufficient for inclusion.  ceran  thor 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion here, about whether these articles on bilateral relations are notable or not. Many of them are nominated for deletion ona daily basis its become something of a cult joke in the community.   Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment a related issue is whether these articles are the best way to handle the matter. Many countries have a "Foreign Relations of..." sort of article too. JJL (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - need I say more... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per expansion and the fact that more sources likely do exist. Blofeld's new information and sources show that the article is most indeed definitely notable. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 17:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the expanded article breaches WP:GNG and WP:RS - it's mostly dependent on Ukrainian-government sources (thus not independent of the subject) and even uses a blog source. It also, as is typical in this series of nonsense articles, prioritizes trivia: would we ever think of mentioning the Kravchuk visit in his biography, or the musicians' performance anywhere? Of course not. But the rules fly out the window here, and we dump in any scraps of information we can find, desperately seeking to create the impression of notability, where in fact no independent, significant coverage has been accorded to "Belgium–Ukraine relations" as such.
 * And how much importance does Belgium ascribe to this trading partnership? Have a look here, if you will. Ukraine isn't even given a separate entry, instead being lumped in (pg. 17) with "other European countries" - Belarus, Moldova, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia. Belgium exports €102.5 mil to "other European countries", and imports €74.5 mil from them -- truly a pittance when set against the total of €18.1 billion/€19.6 billion. So not only are there sourcing issues, the article runs the very real risk of inflating the importance of such relations as do exist well out of proportion. Yes, there is a relationship, but it's hardly that relevant to either party. - Biruitorul Talk 17:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article focuses on distinct relations between Belgium and Ukraine. We wouldn't mention a lot of things included in even the US-UK relations article in the biographies of George Bush and Tony Blair either, does this mean we delete the article on US-UK relations too? I found hardly call the clear economic influence in Ukraine by Belgium "trivia". You think having a 34% share in Ukraine's beer industry is trivia? Thats a very high percentage, worthy of note. Nobody said they were the closest of countrues Ukraine is 45th on Belgium's list of exports, it is clear that both countries aren't the world closest countries obviously but the article doesn't claim this, it does exactly what it says on the tin. I would be willing to bet there are many journal/economic related publications in a different language which substantially covers relations between the two countries. Besides which we generally seek out goverment and reliable sources and if comnined with other sources such as newspaper and journals, great. I find the claim to be prioritsing trivia in this article ironic given that some of the very same people who want this article deleted continue to widely support the trivial lists of cartoon characters and episodes we have on here. Real world economic relations are not trivia. US$ 1 billion in trade annually between these two nations is hardly trivial. Think about it. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - with the possibility of merger later. I can see how in some cases there may be a significant basis for articles such as these, while, in other cases, the need might not be so apparent. Which one this is, I dunno. But I'd rather error on the side of caution initially. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with these international relations articles is indeed where we can draw the line and conclude this is or is not notable. In my view a lot of the stubs we have on bilateral relations I regard as much as a joke as LibStar and the others do. Most of them were started with silly things like "There are 20 Greeks living in Bhutan" or "There is a Greek embassy in Thimpu" and that is it. That's where I really wonder about these articles. I must admit when I first saw these empty articles created seemingly for the sake of it I groaned. Some of them I'm sure can be written into decent articles and in principal a lot of them could potentially have a lot written about them but it is the countries which have a serious lack of connection other than one or two delegates and a handful of people in either country and no real economic or political relationship that I draw the line.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Dr Blofield, thanks for finding your information on relations, I think the AfD will run and consensus will be reached. although I do agree with some of Biruitorul, a lot of the information is from primary sources, and I'm not sure if pigsite.com is the most reliable source. LibStar (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps if I was going to read about swine flu I would seek a different site maybe..Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep this is an A-class article for Wikipedia. Well written, and deletion is just ... well ... silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced, well written and demonstrates (once again) that determining notability in bilateral relations requires more thought than saying, "Well I've never heard of them." Paxse (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - good work by Dr. Blofeld has established notability. Smile a While (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Gatoclass. Good job on all the work to expand it, Dr. Blofeld! Aridd (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The fantastic expansion job clearly establishes notability. This is a perfect example of why knee-jerk deletionism only harms this encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 10 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.