Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada-Marshall Islands 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 Speedy delete' as copyvio. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Canada-Marshall Islands relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

really don't see any notable relations here. most of the relationship is in a multilateral sense ie Canada and a bunch of Pacific Islands. coverage is almost exclusively about multilateral not bilateral relations. . LibStar (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep I don't believe any AFD voting on bilateral relations articles should be done until this policy discussion is completed and a guideline in reference to these types of articles are made. Silver  seren C 04:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment As per my recent close of a similar discussion, I'd like to remind all participants to remain civil and refrain from assumptions of bad faith or personal attacks. Shimeru (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Bilateral relations wikia and delete. Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Canada is notable; the Marshall Islands are notable; the countries have formal diplomatic relations; ergo, the topic of international relations between these two countries is notable per se, on the face of it, without further ado. Wikipedia is not paper, we are not going to run out of space because somebody went to the trouble of writing on an esoteric topic such as this. There is no harm from continued inclusion and information will be lost by deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * there have been at least 100 of these combinations deleted, they are not inherently notable, WP:NOHARM is not really a good reason to keep. Please advise how this article how this article meets WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite. If not, then Merge with 'foreign affairs of' pages for each state. Outback the koala (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I understand Carrite's argument, I have to put this into context by saying that the common outcome has been that there is no automatic notability for articles about the relations between two nations. Throughout the first half of 2009 there was a long lasting controversy in 2009 over a plethora of articles that were collectively described as "Nation X - Nation Y relations".  The consensus was that the diplomatic relations between two different nations is not automatically notable.  Elements of notability usually include resident ambassadors (in this case, neither nation has an embassy in the other nation), extensive trade, and other items.  The consensus was that relations should be mentioned in the "Foreign relations of..." pages, but that separate pages should be created only upon showing of significance.All nations are notable, of course; but the relations between two nations are not necessarily the subject of widespread coverage and don't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.  As an analogy, Barack Obama is notable, and David Cameron is notable, but we would not have a separate article about their discussions, although the information would be covered elsewhere.  The rationale is that there are endless potential combinations of a relationship between any two notable items (hence, articles called "Comparison of _____ and _____" are discouraged as well).    Mandsford 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, random intersection of countries, no evidence of significance. This seems to be part of an attempt to create a whole new tier of articles which are spuriously claimed to be "inherently notable" because every country has some kind of relations with every other country. I do not subscribe to the idea of "inherent" notability nor notability by association, those are the only apparent sources of notability for this particular bilateral relationship. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (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.