Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada-Cambodia 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/procedural close. There is no consensus here after a week of discussion. The discussion at VPP may end up generating a new guideline that this article and its cousins would fall under, so there is little point in relisting for the moment. This close should not be interpreted as a barrier to carrying out whatever is decided at VPP.  A  Train talk 12:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Canada-Cambodia Relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another boilerplate article on bilateral relations between two countries, which contains just enough content to demonstrate that such relations exist, and sources the fact to a single government press release. As always, with almost 200 independent nations on earth we cannot and do not maintain 40,000 articles about diplomatic relations between Country A and Country B for every possible combination of A and B -- we maintain articles about the ones that can be substanced and reliably sourced to media coverage about the significance of the relationships, such as Canada-U.S. or Cambodia-China, and not for every combination of two countries that can be sourced to just one government press release. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated in the discussion guidelines for AfD, "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator" Given that those reasons have now been addressed, please withdraw your nomination.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep nominating an article for deletion on the same day as it was started is an act of bad faith in my book. Moreover, Google Scholar reveals a number of articles and books that could add content, like "Wirick, Gregory, and Robert Miller. Canada and missions for peace: lessons from Nicaragua, Cambodia, and Somalia. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA, 1998.", "Eayrs, James George. In Defence of Canada: Indochina, roots of complicity. Vol. 5. Univ of Toronto Pr, 1965." and "Kerr, Jeffrey L. "" Honest brokers"? Canada and the International Commission for Supervision and Control, Cambodia: 1954 to 1964." (1998): 0385-0385." It seems WP:BEFORE would have been relevant here.--TM 23:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, BEFORE is always relevant to AfD. My concern is WP:REALPROBLEM. The creator, whom I've run into before, has been creating these bilateral articles without making any real effort at a claim of notability. This was nom'd seven hours after creation which is more than enough time. While I don't concede notability, this could be a case for WP:TNT. Let a responsible editor that can make a real go at the subject write it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But the nominator hasn't nominated this article based on notability. Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominator's argument is a lack of SIGCOV and I agree. Again, the editor making these articles isn't considering WP:N. They're making articles about every conceivable dyad. The nominator isn't making an argument about NOTPAPER, which is what you seem to intone below. Every article subject has to be notable. This subject isn't. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think if the new RS can be added, then it would be notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, this miserably fails WP:N. Yilloslime T C  22:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the three scholarly articles I posted above?--TM 00:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to dig those sources up and add any relevant content to the article, great. Until then, the article lacks multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A few hits on google scholar ≠ notability. Yilloslime T C  17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not how Wikipedia notability works. Wikipedia notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's wrong (quite persistently, I might add) about how Wikipedia notability works. It is not enough to just say that better sources exist out there somewhere — a solid WP:GNG-passing volume of sourcing has to be demonstrated, not just asserted, to exist before you get any right to claim that you're the only one who really understands how notability works while everybody else is an idiot who needs to sit through your lectures. Anybody can simply claim that better sourcing exists for anything — I could claim that Margaret Atwood wrote a book about my cat if I didn't actually have to prove it — so it's not enough to just assert that a subject passes GNG if the evidence that they pass GNG isn't explicitly shown. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability states that, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..." The issue here is that the OP wanted to see sources in the article to satisfy WP:N.  WP:N states, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."  My statement stands.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not demonstrated just because somebody asserts that better sources probably exist somewhere — it has to be a known fact that better sources do exist somewhere, namely because somebody has shown sufficient evidence of that. If all anybody had to do was say that better sources exist, and not actually prove it, then everybody could just say that about everything that exists at all, and we'd never be able to delete anything ever again. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argumentum ad absurdum is not based on the issue at hand. The issue here is that the OP wanted to see sources in the article to satisfy WP:N.  Please see my previous response for a quote from WP:NEXIST, which shows that WP:Notability does not require that sources be posted in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Argumentum ad accuracy, based precisely on the exact issue at hand. The fact that notability is based on the existence of adequate sourcing, rather than necessarily on the sources already present in the article, is all very well and good — but the existence of adequate sourcing most certainly does have to be demonstrated by hard proof before there's a valid keep case to be made on the basis of that existence of adequate sourcing. It cannot just be asserted without showing adequate evidence of it, precisely because anybody can just claim that about anything if they don't have to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So you agree that sources don't have to be in the article to for WP:N. As for the part about "proof", I'll just say here that your assertion lacks a citation.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've seen a few of these on WP:NPP every week for the past few months. A redirect solution for all ~50k country pairs may be necessary to discourage creation. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: article has been renamed Canada–Cambodia relations. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia hosts millions of articles, and as a paperless encyclopedia, can host millions more.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So then why don't we keep articles about you and me and my mother's neighbour who got into the papers for finding a pig in her yard, if the lack of any technical restrictions on how many articles we have the ability to host is a reason to keep something in and of itself? Because we have notability standards to differentiate what qualifies for an article on here and what doesn't, that's why. And one of those standards is WP:GNG, which requires more reliable sourcing than anybody has shown here as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No one suggested that it is policy to keep articles because we have the technical capability of doing so, so what is your point? Unscintillating (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No one suggested that it's policy, but you were quite clearly suggesting that it's a reason in and of itself to keep this — the only possible reason for saying "Wikipedia hosts millions of articles, and as a paperless encyclopedia, can host millions more" in an AFD, is if you're attempting to suggest that Wikipedia's technical capacity to host a limitless number of articles is in and of itself a reason for keeping the article under discussion. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The antecedent is your statement, "we cannot...maintain 40,000 articles about diplomatic relations between Country A and Country B for every possible combination of A and B". In contrast, WP:NOTPAPER, which "describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", says, "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content."  In this very AfD, Power~enwiki has proposed populating all 40,000 of those pages.  So what is the basis of your claim that these pages are not maintainable, any more than any other 40,000 articles on Wikipedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 40,000 unsourced boilerplate pages which just state that the topic is a thing that exists != 40,000 properly written and properly referenced articles about notable things that people actually pay attention to and read and edit and watchlist. Our overarching goal is quality, not quantity: 40,000 good quality articles is not a problem, while 40,000 "X is a thing that exists, the end" boilerplates is a problem. Not the number itself, but the quality of what's getting counted. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WP:VPP that is relevant to this AfD. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:59, 22 October 2017 (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.