Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Estonia 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. Question: Should the result of this AfD suggest the results of all the proddings of "X-Y relations" articles? Valley2 city ‽ 06:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile–Estonia relations

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

Disputed. Topic fails WP:N--no non-trivial sources on this "topic" could be located. Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example WP:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations, Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Moldova_relations, or Articles_for_deletion/Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland. Yilloslime T C  04:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

From the official Estonian government site:
 * In South America, Chile has been one of Estonia’s most important trading partners. Estonia has exported machinery, equipment and mineral fuels to Chile. Estonian imports from Chile include wine, fish and crustaceans as well as fruits. The total turnover in the trade of goods between the two countries reached MEEK 99.6 in 2007. OECD membership allows for the further tightening of economic relations.
 * In 2006, Estonia and Chile issued the joint Antarctic themed postmark series, designed by Ülle Marks and Jüri Kass, bearing images of the Emperor penguin and the minke whale.

It took all of 20 seconds to find just one example of a particular relathionship. So, perhaps we can agree to leave this? Thank you. PetersV     TALK 05:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Why can't people write in English and not Wikipedese? Can you state "Disputed " in English? Thank you. PetersV     TALK 05:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, this isn't just some random pairing of two countries forming yet another contentless article like many other articles that have been deleted, but an active relationship in terms of meetings, trade and treaties, which has had some coverage by the respective foreign language media. Chile physically co-locating the Estonian Embassy in Helsinki (a 75km one hour ferry ride from Tallinn) along with its Finnish Embassy is more of a function of economics than importance. Martintg (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, fine, but where are the independent secondary sources that would establish the notibility of this topic? Such sources are required by WP:N. Yilloslime T C  08:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the respective Estonian and Chilean media, something an English language Google search would not reveal. Martintg (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then it's probably not worthy of coverage in the English Wikipedia. Might be suitable a topic for the Estonian, Spanish, or even Russian Wikipedias, though. Yilloslime T C  08:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that, perhaps you should look at WikiProject Countering systemic bias: "Sources published in a medium which is both widely available and familiar to editors, such as a news website, are more likely to be utilised than those from esoteric or foreign-language publications regardless of their reliability. For example, a 2007 story on the BBC News website is more likely to be utilised than a 1967 edition of the Thai Post.". Martintg (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong answer. International relations are not just the business of the involved countries' languages.  International relations are world affairs.  These days, the Franks speak English, so lingua franca for discussing world affairs is English. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To which the obvious counter-argument would be that finding English sources for such a relationship shouldn't be that hard to find then? --Russavia Dialogue 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As the article stands now. There is no permanent diplomatic representation in either country of the other (anyone can be an honorary consul), and the only sources for info thus far are non-independent sources. If there is "respective Estonian and Chilean media" coverage, this independent coverage needs to be demonstrated within the article, as there is no offhand notabe relations between the two countries -- political, trade, transport, cultural, military, etc. --Russavia Dialogue 08:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true, the current Chilean ambassador to Estonia, Carlos Parra Merino officially presented his credentials to the Estonian President in 2007, he is Chile's permanent representative to Estonia, being located in Helsinki is just a convenience for him, nothing more. Martintg (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I stated; The Chilean ambassador to Finland has concurrent accreditation to Estonia, and has residence in Helsinki; meaning there is no permanent diplomatic representation of either country in the other. There are varying reasons why countries have embassies in other countries also covering other countries in concurrence; it may be due to limited resources of countries, or it may be that relations are not yet fully developed; those are just two reasons. Without the demonstrated existence of independent sources to give the bilateral relationship notability, the article by all rights should be deleted. --Russavia Dialogue 08:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:N mentions anything about where an accredited representative resides being a requirement for notability, and Helsinki is a convenient ferry ride away from Tallinn. As I said, the relationship is notable in the respective foreign language medias, references of which will be presented in due course. You vote is premature. Martintg (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't, but it does state "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I've looked for sources myself before voicing my opinion here, so this isn't an opinion I haven't voiced without checking first. I've also mentioned numerous things which can come into "bilateral relations" and there is nothing there to be found; not by me anyways. --Russavia Dialogue 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How's a visa-free travel programme for a reason? It takes away quite a lot of the embassies' workload, allowing consuls to effectively deal with a lot of the remaining diplomatic business.  Besides, this isn't anything like, say, Cyprus-Chile, where Cyprus maintains its supposedly Chilean embassy on the other side of the world -- in Madrid, no less.
 * Of course, that's not how it's formally said, but for all practical purposes, Chile's embassy resides in Talsinki. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how the Chile's embassy actually puts it: Embajada de Chile en Finlandia. Concurrente en Estonia. in big, friendly letters atop the title page. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Visas and the like are usually the domain of the consular service of an embassy; an embassy isn't just a visa-processing centre. It is high-level representation of one country to another, and includes functions such as the fostering of trade ties, cultural ties, military ties, etc via their respected attaches; basically the representation of one country's interests in another. The existence of a permanent diplomatic mission, whilst not the be-all-and-end-all of this subject, can often indicate possibly notability of a subject at a casual glance. I wouldn't object to article being recreated in future though, but as it stands now, it doesn't demonstrate notability, and the nomination is a correct one. --Russavia Dialogue 09:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As has become quite clear, Chile maintains a permanent diplomatic mission to Estonia. The situation is similar to how Chile's embassy to Luxembourg is located in Brussels -- a Benelux city that happens to formally locate on the Belgian side. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand to clarify the issues raised above. I'll take your word that Chile is indeed important to Estonia. NVO (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll try to not to puke when I see that this was started by Groubani. Although I do not endorse the reckless creation of a multiplication table's worth of articles about nationX and nationY, the fact that they have negotiated agreements, and that the Prime Minister of Estonia has conferred with the President of Chile, is proof enough that there is a notable relationship here.  It occurs to me that this should be the rule of thumb on notability of a relationship-- a meeting between the heads of government or negotiations on an agreement specific to the two nations.  Mandsford (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is notability by assertion: nowhere do the notability guidelines state or even imply that the mere existence of bilateral agreements between countries makes their relations notable. Notability still boils down to coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, and no one has demonstrated that such coverage exist for the topic Estonian-Chilean relations. Some sort of rule of thumb for dealing with these types of articles would certainly be welcome, and hopefully after enough of these have gone thru AfD we'll have a good idea of what that rule might look like. But I don't think it'll be as simply as what you propose. For one, what about notably bad relations? We wouldn't expect to see bilateral agreements or embassies in countries with terrible relations, yet there would be tons of literature on the topic of their relations. Yilloslime T C  16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines differ for different things. If third party independant sources are the only requirement, then are you suggesting we should also delete the individual entries in List of Heroes of the Russian Federation? Martintg (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability applies to topics--specifically whether a topic is appropriate for stand-alone article. It has nothing to say about what specific facts get covered in an article.Yilloslime T C  07:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * :: snip :: moved mostly-off topic bickering to talk page. Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No indications of any particular notability. The contact between the two countries appears low-level and routine: 6.3 million EUR in annual trade is tiny (many large stores would make this kind of revenue in a week), the treaties are all low level boilerplate type stuff and all kinds of combinations of national leaders meet all the time (and since when are press releases useful for establishing notability?). Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't noticed, Estonia's economy isn't all that big and Chilean wine does have the greatest market share in that country. Is doing a joint stamp issue a low-level and routine thing? Martintg (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, joint issues are a standard thing and are typical done by postal bureaus. That information belongs in that article, but can't seriously be used to establish notability of a bilateral relationship. A joint-stamp issue is not like a joint space mission which could be used to establish some degree of notability. --Russavia Dialogue 03:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Joint space mission? Get serious, by that criteria the only article worth keeping would be Soviet-US relations, every thing else would be deleted. These arguments are becoming a bit silly. Martintg (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard rumours that it's common in Russia to see the world affairs as a Manichean battle between USA (also known as the International Imperialism) and Russia (also known as the Third Rome), and to believe that all international relations follow from this eternal opposition. I guess these rumours are somewhat validated now. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Joint space missions require high-levels of co-operation -- military, technical, political, etc. Joint-stamp issues require probably nothing more than the signature of a post office "manager". Also, the level of trade between Estonia and Chile, as Nick-D mentions is miniscule, and is about the same amount of trade between Australia and Albania each year - we wouldn't build an article based upon Australia exporting $2 million of margarine to Albania a year. To bring it straight back to this, have there been any state visits between Estonia and Chile? Have there been any treaties signed between the two countries which indicate a notable relationship (visa-free travel isn't really notable either)? Is there any history of contacts between the two countries? etc, etc, etc. These are what one calls notable relations. If anything like that could be supplied, I'd change my opinion to keep in a flash. Instead of absurdly arguing to keep an article based upon the existence of a joint-stamp issue, it would be better to find sources to demonstrate actual notability; as I said previously, I searched myself for this info before I voiced my opinion here; a search in Spanish or Estonian may yield something substantial, and they should be found. This is exactly what was mentioned by several editors at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_14 -- articles don't exist because someone thinks it is important, they exist because they are notable, and notability can be established by following WP:N. --Russavia Dialogue 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For a small country like Albania, maybe $2 million of margarine exports from Australia may be a very significant thing. Are we suffering from systematic bias here? Visa free travel is not notable? Russia may have engaged in joint space missions, but has Russia achieved visa free travel with the USA or Europe yet? When it does, that would certainly be a notable event. Chile and Estonia has enjoyed visa free travel since 2000. As for joint stamp issues, the event was attended by the Chilean ambassador with lots of coverage, for example as reported here in this TV item. There are some 759 Google hits when I search on the terms Tšiili suursaadik eesti (Chile ambassador Estonia), if I had the time I'm sure I could dig up quite a number of references. Martintg (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the CIA World Factbook's entry on Estonia, in 2007 Estonia imported $US 16.23 billion worth of goods and services and exported $US 13.16 billion. As such, EUR 6 million is a tiny proportion of the country's trade and, not surprisingly, Chile isn't listed as being one of Estonia's main trading partners. Countering systemic bias isn't an excuse to include trivia or claim that trivia generates notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * However Chilean wine does dominate the Estonian market, which is remarkable given the EU wine lake. We all want to get rid of these random pairings created by Groubani, heck I agree with deleting Estonia–South Africa relations and Colombia–Estonia relations, but given enough random groupings will actually generate a handful of pearls. Unlike those two other articles mentioned, there are a number of bilateral agreements (which in of itself would be notable for an encyclopedia), high level ministerial meetings, cultural events like the Chilean film festival and a joint stamp release. There really is a need to develop specific criteria for notability of diplomatic relations for inclusion into WP:N, until then, I think this article should make the cut. Martintg (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'd say every major grocery store in Estonia has dedicated shelf space for Chile wines. The largest ones have wide selections of 'Wines of the world', of course, but I was quite impressed last week, seeing a dedicated rack for Chile wines in a relatively small store oriented for students (it's located next to a major UT dormitory).  They had three self-serve sections for alcoholic beverages altogether: "Beer" (a few manufacturer-branded refrigerated showcases), "Chile wines" (a man-sized rack full of various bottles) and "Alcohol" (unclassified shelves of various bottled alcoholic drinks from the bubbly to the fortified. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't share the nominator's view that these relations are non-notable. The article details a depth of interaction that goes beyond the other whimsical foreign relation couplings that turn up in AfD. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that no one other than the Estonian and Chilean governments has bothered to make note of (i.e. written about) their relations. Notability for a stand-alone article requires coverage in independent secondary sources. We do not have that here. It's fine for wikipedia to mention somewhere that Chilean wine is popular in Estonia and that neither country has an embassy in the other, but those facts alone don't justify a stand-alone article. Significant coverage of those facts would. If this was band, and the only sources were the band's website and myspace page and a few Events Calendars from local papers establishing that they'd played some shows, then everyone would agree (I suspect) that the topic is non-notable. We have an analogous situation here, but many folks seem to be confusing the issue of whether there is trivial coverage of their relations with whether the relations themselves are trivial. Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comparing apples and oranges. There are a zillion bands out there that would love their very own Wikipedia article, hence the bar to notability must necessarily be set high. However anything published by a government is intrinsically notable. There are 192 countries within the UN, but the Estonian Foreign Ministry has only published information on relations with 70 countries, relations with the other 122 countries aren't deemed notable enough by the Estonian state. Martintg (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Just plain non-notable diplomatic stuff, as the nominator correctly points out, see previous consensus and mass nomination at Articles for deletion/Chile-Whatever relations --Enric Naval (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is coverage in the media of the Chile-Estonian relations, both print and TV. For example, the joint stamp issue event attended by the Chilean ambassador in the press and TV, significant trade in chilen wine dominating the Estonian market, the meeting between the Estonian PM and the Chilean President, Estonian opposition leader and major of Tallinn Edgar Savisaar meeting with the Chilean ambassador as well as various bi-lateral agreements in preparation or in force, such as a visa free travel agreement. Martintg (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  —J.Mundo (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  —J.Mundo (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if there is anything at all to actually write about, as seems to be the case here, the article is justified. DGG (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourced, notable, needs more coverage. feydey (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article is notable, has sources, yet, needs more work. Likeminas (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the requirement for establishing notability (which is here) is not simply that any-old sources can be dug up, but rather that independent secondary sources can be found, and furthermore that such sources actually discuss the topic, not simply mention it trivially in passing. The article still has no such sources. The sources it has are a few Estonian government webpages, and briefest possible mentions that 1) Chilean wine in popular in Estonia, and 2)  they issued a joint postal stamp.  Can someone explain to me how any of these sources are independent, secondary, and non-trivial? Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we deleted all the articles on WP which only rely on news sources and no "independent secondary sources" we'd have to delete half the content on WP. "Trivial" as has been used herein is personal editorial POV. You think a joint postal issue of two countries at opposite ends of the globe is trivial, I think it's not. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read me comment more closely. I never said the joint issue was trivial, on that it--and more generally the topic of Chile-Estonia relations--has received only trivial coverage in independent secondary sources... Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? I just provided 5 independent sources from the press and TV. Since when is an item broadcast on television news considered trivial coverage? Martintg (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring specifically to refs used in the article—sorry if that wasn't clear. But the refs you (Martintg) provided aren't any better. Two of them are already cited in the article and I discussed them above. The others (translated using google) don't actually discuss the topic of bilateral relations between these countries. One is about the stamps and talks about their design and the interest of each country in the Antarctic--nothing about their bilateral relations. Another is about a meeting the PM of Chile and the President of Estonia--a high level meeting for sure, but there's nothing in the article on the topic of their bilateral relations, it only briefly relates what the leaders talked about. The last one talks about a meeting between the Mayor or Tallinn and the Chilean Ambassador to  Estonia who happens to live in Finland. Not a word on the relations between the two countries except that (and please excuse google's poor English): "The Mayor and the Ambassador said that building up contacts and the development of the capital cities of both countries, and between the perspective of both parties begin preparations for the establishment of cooperative." If we were talking about bands or video games we'd call these types mentions "cruft". Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said before, there are a zillion garage bands who would love their own article, thus the requirement for notability is different for bands. You voted keep in Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Russia relations, but looking at those sources in that article, most are concerned with missile sales. Missile sales fulfill notability criteria, wine sales and visa free travel and joint stamp release not, apparently. Martintg (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simple: there appear to be plenty of sources on those missile sales (and other aspects of Cypriot-Russian relations) that are independent, secondary, and actually discuss the issue in some depth. I'm not seeing that with this topic.Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (od) It's a sad commentary that missiles count and other things apparently don't. I thought when it came to encyclopedic articles it wasn't about popularity contests and simple mass mentality and mass media. As for "cruft", sorry, I debugged my first program in 1972, I pre-date "cruft." Perhaps you have a more accessible metaphor? PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or more to the point: 100 sources fixated on missiles versus even just 1 source fixated on joint postal issues at opposite ends of our planet are about equivalent in terms of topical interest and encyclopedic significance in my book. I don't deny you your significance of missiles (or that many agree with you). That's no reason to deny the significance of postal issues (or paucity of coverage because missiles are more interesting because of their apocalyptic appeal). PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And regarding an earlier "Which is exactly what I stated; The Chilean ambassador to Finland has concurrent accreditation to Estonia, and has residence in Helsinki; meaning there is no permanent diplomatic representation of either country in the other." An ambassador is an ambassador, period. A building is not a relationship. Latvia's ambassador to the U.S. and to Mexico happened to live in the U.S. while posted here. That doesn't mean there aren't relations. Helsinki or Stockholm as the center-point for Baltic activities/headquarters diplomatic or otherwise is common and in no way a measure of importance. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:44, 2 April 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.