Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhutan–Brazil relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bhutan–Brazil relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

as the last AfD was no consensus, but fails WP:GNG. There really isn't significant coverage just factoids. Diplomatic recognition can be covered in 1 line in foreign relations article.the common memberships prove nothing about actual relations. the level of trade is very low, even the article admits "In 2011, Bhutan ranked 236th among Brazil's trade partners, having a 0,00% participation in Brazilian foreign trade". the fact that you have to pass through a third country to fly to Bhutan adds zero to relations. the claim that Brazil is interested in Bhutan's happiness index seems more like the opinion of one person and not the Government. And 4 of the sources relate to this happiness index and 1 conference. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * keep or merge. Useful, verifiable, encyclopedic information. Easily meets GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL not a reason for keeping. So telling people that trade is virtually nothing and you can't get direct flights between the 2 countries makes relations notable? LibStar (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What a weird argument. The whole wikipedia exists because it is useful. Yes it is a reason. And yes the fact that you cant get direct flight is a fact which makes these relations notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * " And yes the fact that you cant get direct flight is a fact which makes these relations notable" what a weird comment, that is really pushing it for notability... I can't get a direct flight from Nauru to Luxembourg and trade is almost non existent, using your reasoning this makes Luxembourg-Nauru relations notable. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes this fact makes these relations notable because it contributes to WP:GNG, in the part about sourcing. Somebody outside wikipedia decided to mention this fact thinking it was important for public to know. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

how does virtually no trade and having to fly through another country actually establish notability of these relations? would you concede that Luxembourg-Nauru relations is a worthy article as well? LibStar (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - pure WP:SYNTH. These are just random facts brought together to suggest a notable diplomatic relationship that simply isn't there. The fact that one country's diplomat might sit two tables away from the other's diplomat at dinner because they happen to be members of the same international organisation has zero to do with notability. There's nothing that couldn't be mentioned in either country's foreign relations articles. That's said, I can't imagine any of these "facts" would be mentioned - they wouldn't even be relevant there. The trade relationship is, "in some years even non-existent". And yet this "non-existent" relationship has generated enough coverage to be considered notable? I don't think so. Stalwart 111  06:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These are not "random facts": these are the facts of BB relations. Neither there is SYNTH, i.e., no new conclusions are drawn. "Two tables way" is a red herring argument. The relations between the two countries do exist, and wikipedia readers are entitled to know basic facts: when they started, how they progress, who are the ambassadors etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The synthetic conclusion is right there in the title - that these random non-notable events and factoids add up to a notable diplomatic relationship between two countries that don't actually have much of anything to do with each other. Ever. The "relations" exist only insofar as both countries do and their respective diplomats might once have had a drink in the same bar or were once standing behind one another in the cafeteria at the UN. The proper way of covering these things (though, again, I can't see any reason we would with regard any of the "facts" in question) would be to have them mentioned in the respective "foreign relations of X" articles. If it turns out they share more than a civil head-nod in the corridors, then articles like these are justified. Stalwart 111  02:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have a miscommunication regarding the term "diplomatic relations". My position is that DR is an objective fact which exists regardless wikipedian's opinions. It is a binary variable: either DR officially exists or not. Moreover, it is an important indicator of the standing of a state: either it has any diplomatic relations or not. Therefore I consider this kind of fact important enough to be included in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And in this case, both countries have diplomatic relations and we (quite rightly) have articles to cover both country's diplomatic relations (Foreign relations of Bhutan and Foreign relations of Brazil). But having foreign relations in general does not confer notability on every combination of random-random relations between two countries. The issue is not whether each country has a foreign affairs program or not (clearly they both do), but whether this relationship between these two countries is notable. There is nothing to suggest they should be automatically notable, in fact an assessment of similar AFDs on an WP:OUTCOMES basis would suggest a great many of these random-random relations articles are not notable without some formal diplomatic activity. If particular facts are worth including then I have no objection to them being including in each country's foreign relations article. What I object to is someone collecting collecting those unrelated parts and suggesting a formal, diplomatic whole which simply doesn't exist. Stalwart 111  21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]] ) 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: This seems like it falls under the spirit (if not the letter) or WP:NOTCASE. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Or rather WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment' Cone on, colleagues, do you really suggest that relations between two states are less notable than next best aspiring pornstar? If you think that there is not enough info for an independent article, the content may be merged somewhere; to delete is a disservice to wikipedia's "spirit (if not the letter)". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which part of my argument refers to OTHERSTUFF? How it is related to my proposal of merging instead of deleting? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that's a red herring! But since you asked - yes, the biography of a genuinely notable pornographic actor is more worthy of an article here that the invented diplomatic relationship between two states where the majority of the citizens from each country would struggle to find the other on a map. Many of those pornographic actors can be found in each and every local video shop, including those in the two countries in question perhaps. Stalwart 111  02:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talking about red herrings and other tricks: I was not speaking about "genuinely notable" pornstar. I see quite a few deletion discussions where someone goes out of themselves to promote this years' deflorated starlet. Now, "invented relationship" - this is plain false. The relationship does exist according to official documents. It is a noble goal of wikipedia to provide info which is not readily available in every local videoshop or, say in Encyclopedia Britannica. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I am not talking about info about a dog next door. We are talking official country info. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then those, too, should be deleted. "According to official documents" (plural) is a stretch. They signed a single joint communiqué in 2009 while their respective foreign ministers were in New York for a UN meeting. Bhutan has similar "relations" with at 23 other countries, just in Europe. That is the only source that exists to substantiate any sort of formal diplomatic relationship between the two. Want to mention that single document in either country's foreign relations article? Go for it. But a single document surely isn't enough to extrapolate into a stand-alone article. Stalwart 111  21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the same reason given in the previous AfD: I don't see how this violates WP:GNG. It has a significant amount of independent and reliable sources to back it up. Just because it's not a strong relationship doesn't mean it's not worthy of being described. The article in no way leads people to think the relations are bigger than what they are. Granted, it's an unusual article, but it complies with the notability guidelines. Pikolas (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. At the moment this "relationship" is substantiated by one document, the signing of which received only coverage from those involved in its signing. In effect, we're discussing whether that document (given it is the only thing constituting "relations" here) is notable enough in its own right to justify an article. And it's not an "odd" or "unusual" article - hundreds of these nonsense diplomati-spam articles have been created, many by a prolific sock-puppeteer a few years ago. Stalwart 111  03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who created what and when and why has no relation to the discussed article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep  Meets the GNG with plenty of reliable and official sources.  The purpose of the article is to describe the relations between these two states.  That these relations are sparse is no reason to delete.   Th e S te ve   04:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - upon a source review, squeaks by as meeting WP:N. NorthAmerica1000 00:32, 26 April 2014 (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.