Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cook Islands–Czech Republic 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   delete. Consensus is clear that there are insufficient sources (that are both reliable and independent) to establish the notability of this topic. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 16:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



blatantly fails WP:GNG. the whole article is based on one primary source. There is nothing that typically makes notable relations. No trade agreements, no ambassadors, no trade, no visits by leaders, no migration. Etc. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No ambassadors?? No visits, no trade?? Obviously you did not read the article at all! The source added, there is no problem to give the next. Jan CZ (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the article. no resident ambassadors, no embassies in cook islands. zero evidence of trade. has the Czech president visited cook islands? LibStar (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a reason to delete the article. The proposal for deletion is completely against an attempt of WikiProject International relations on the cover of the bilateral relations. Jan CZ (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No relevant arguments. Jan CZ (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - presume this is a joke. No notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume your comment is a joke. No notability? It is Your personal view. But not relavant criteria for the existence of the article. Respect WP:NPOV. Jan CZ (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a content policy. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors, and personal opinions on matters are welcome, given that they are within reason and are for the benefit of the project. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom . Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No relevant arguments. Jan CZ (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete per nom.  Jay Jay Talk to me 21:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No relevant arguments. Jan CZ (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nomination - there are no indications of notability here Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been in,cluded in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No notability? It is Your personal view. But not relavant criteria for the existence of the article., Respect WP:NPOV. I can show you a variety of similarly "uninteresting" articles on bilateral relations. It is not the reason for their removal. Described should be existing (diplomatic) relations, not only the remarkable relations, according to the personal view of certain editors. Jan CZ (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS like uninteresting articles is not a reason for keeping. WP:NPOV applies to article content not arguments in deletion discussion. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "No notability" is personal view, but not relavant criteria for the keeping/deletion of the article. Jan CZ (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not his personal view, it's what the rules say. "Multiple reliable sources" are required, and this article does not have those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, that "no notability" is personal view, but not relavant criteria for the keeping/deletion of the article. Jan CZ (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. No relevant arguments for deletion. Jan CZ (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, within the scope of WikiProject International relations (rated as Mid-importance), within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, and this article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands. If you want to improve the article, you are all welcome. Delete the article is unacceptable. Jan CZ (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

please read WP:GNG. there is no significant third party coverage. foreign ministry websites are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LibStar, You're wrong. There is a clear secondary source-article in newspaper about the visit of the Czech Ambassador, certifying the existence of the Czech Ambassador to the Cook Islands and the existence of diplomatic relations, e.g. the key information of the article. I now WP:GNG, thank You. Jan CZ (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he's absolutely right. One source is not "multiple" sources as required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Article has no only one source, try looking properly before you write something. Jan CZ (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

one secondary source does not make an article. significant coverage means multiple third party sources not one. over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are four primary sources and two secondary sources attesting to the facts referred in the article. Sources are a decent (nothing like a blogs), given the scope of the article is entirely adequate amount of sources. By the way is very non-standard your rush to delete the article. Is a good habit to first draw attention to the lack of sources, and only then, if they are not delivered, propose deletion of the article. But that's just on the edge. Jan CZ (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LibStar, please read WP:DEL-REASON if you want to use WP:DEL ever again. 1) Improvement is preferable to deletion of page. 2) Reasons for deletion: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Your procedure is in contradiction with the Wikipedia deletion policy. Jan CZ (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A Summary This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, within the scope of WikiProject International relations (rated as Mid-importance), within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, and this article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands. This article has reliable sources, a number of sources is adequate to the scope of the article. Delete the article is unacceptable and here is no relevant reasons for it. Jan CZ (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LibStar, Can you explain to me, what right have you delete my comments (at 1:31, 26 December 2012)?! It's first time on Wikipedia. I will contact the administrator. I think you have no serious effort to debate, but you want to assert its position at any cost. When you are running out of arguments, erase my comments. The article has a sufficient notability and reliable sources. In such a discussion, I refuse to continue. Jan CZ (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologise it was an error when editing on my phone. but you should not erase my comments too. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * : being part of wikiproject adds no weight to notability.

ambassadors visit countries all the time that is a routine event. strong consensus here to delete. LibStar (talk) 01 :31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A Summary again
 * Article was suggested for deletion primarily for WP:GNG. Was my fault, that I published an unfinished article (and no mark it as a stub). But sources have been added, the reason is no longer here.
 * Proposal procedure is in contradiction with the Wikipedia deletion policy, WP:DEL-REASON : 1) Improvement is preferable to deletion of page. 2) Reasons for deletion: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed".
 * The other editors given position at the time before enlargement article. To argue their point of view now (as view to the existing article after enlargement) is irrelevant and nefarious.
 * LibStar, you are trying to delete the article using unfair procedure and unfair arguments.
 * The criterion for the existence of the bilateral relations article is to establish formal relations between the countries. Only if there are no formal relations, we can use the secondary criteria for the existence of the articles. The article as Andorra-St. Lucia relations would probably not make sense - no official relations, no other reasons for existence, while Abchazia-Turkey relations has many reasons for the existence of - no official relations, but many bilateral activities including visits of the President.
 * Article Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations meets the basic criteria (formal relations was established) and other reasons is not necessary. And by the way, for a country such as the Cook Islands is to visit of any Ambassador more significant than the fact to visit President of Benin for the Czech Republic. It is very interesting how the Cook Islands, a State in association with NZ, trying to establishing in the international arena as a sovereign State, how it enhances his position through bilateral relations and how countries are willing to help to these islands.
 * This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations (rated as Mid-importance), the proposal for deletion is completely against an attempt of WikiProject International relations on the cover of the bilateral relations.
 * The article has a sufficient notability and reliable sources.
 * Delete the article is unacceptable and here is no relevant reasons for it. Jan CZ (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON, WP:ITSINTERESTING LibStar (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

formal relations is not a criterion for notability. over 100 bilateral article have been deleted all with formal relations. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant reason is that the article is not notable, as the topic does not meet Wikipedia policy for notability, which as LibStar says does not include formal bilateral relations as a criterion. Saying it does with a lot of boldface comments does not change that fact, sorry. It's not personal opinion either, all of us who have seen the article intersubjectively agree on its lack of notability per policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements. The point of notability is to establish that an article, that covers all or most of the aspects of a subject, can be written through verification from reliable sources. I originally made a delete argument because I concurred with the nominator that one primary source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but since everything in the article is now verified through reliable sourcing, and that the nom's original reason for deletion is now redundant, I'll reverse my !vote to keep. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep at nomination time there were deficiencies, but I see that most of those are improved upon now. Japinderum (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * comment my nomination still stands. All the relations are diplomatic recognition and minor assistance. Even the article admits the relations are sporadic. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bilateral relations articles are a staple of the encyclopedia and likely fit the gazzeteer portion of the WP:5PILLARS. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * not an argument for addressing WP:N. bilateral articles are not inherently notable, over 100 have been deleted for failing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * comment The article was not the result of random selection, but systematic efforts to map the bilateral relations of the CI. At the Template:Foreign relations of the Cook Islands it is possible see (future) bilateral relations articles. It is representative selection. Czech Republic is one of them. And, I've expanded the article further. Jan CZ (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Jan CZ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the attempts by Jan CZ to shout down the opposition, this subject is simply not notable. The secondary sources do NOT establish that this is an important topic, and primary sources are by definition inadmissable to establish notability.  PianoDan (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - attempts to bludgeon those opining for deletion of your own article are pretty poor form. You need to allow community consensus to develop and if it develops with a position contrary to yours, then you need to think about whether you can either fix the article to convince people otherwise or make good solid arguments here. "You're wrong, I'm right" isn't a very convincing argument. I also don't think there's enough here to justify what is basically synthed-together speculation on what contributions to broad aid programs and accredited embassies might mean. Stalwart 111  22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've brought a series of rational arguments for retaining article. For the keep of the article are four editors, not just me. I thought that we will develop discussion here about the notability of the article, not a debate on Jan CZ. I was wrong. Jan CZ (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have made some valid points but unfortunately you've seemed determined to make them again and again after almost every !vote. Comments like, "No relevent arguments", which you used to dismiss three editors' contributions, don't help. Make your "valid points" and let others do the same. AFD is not a vote-count, but is decided on weight of arguments that cite policy and guidelines. Let the closing admin decide if others' comments are "relevent" or not. Stalwart 111  22:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The article's just a rag-tag collection of vaguely related facts. There's no reason to have sections on treaties with large number of signatories that both countries happen to have signed, like the Cotonou Agreement, or other issues that are about the relations between the Cook Islands and the European Union rather than the Czech Republic specifically.  Basic facts can be added to Foreign relations of the Cook Islands, or maybe an article on Cook Islands-EU relations, but we don't need a separate article for the Cook Islands' relationship with each country in the world. This is based on previous AfDs for international relations articles for other small countries. Find me a book or scholarly articles specifically on the relations of the Cook Islands and Czech Republic and I'll certainly reconsider, but the existing references are strictly WP:ROUTINE. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With all the States? Cook Islands do not have even a single article on bilateral relations, with the exception of this article. I thought it will have about 10 articles with the most important relations. According to your logic will not be able to have any article. Since you are trying to apply the global importance for a local business. In this logic, it would be necessary to delete the thousands of articles relating to small countries, as also their mountains, history, politicians, cities, etc., because his importance is clearly local, but global, of course not. And what is the notability of Niue? Then it's really hard to talk about notability of bilateral relations of countries such as Cook Islands or Niue... Many of the articles on Wikipedia has not a book or scholarly articles specifically (only) on it. And, WP:ROUTINE relates to individual events, not to long-term relationships. Jan CZ (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per PianoDan. Jan CZ's efforts here to have other viewpoints quashed are poor form. 1292simon (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, civility is critically important. We all get to feel passionately about articles, but that is no reason to attempt to suppress other points of view, and there are clearly arguments that dissent from Jan CZ's here. - Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks reliable sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An apology - To someone he felt be affected by my eagerness, I'm sorry, I did not intend to suppress anyone's views. Jan CZ (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Query - Please other editors about the explanation, what is fundamentally different from this article, and for example article Bulgaria–Indonesia relations. (There are basic information about embassies, two banal treaties and little humanitarian aid. Nothing else. No "book or scholarly articles specifically on" the relations of Bulgaria and Indonesia, the "existing references are strictly WP:ROUTINE" according to the arguments used here.) So it looks like the vast majority of articles on bilateral relations. I'd like to figure out how You to judge a notability of bilateral relations articles. So far, unfortunately, it is not clear to me. If somebody will explain fundamental differences between this two articles, I have no problem to change my minds. I have keeping an article no for my authorship, but because I still belief that it is comparable with the others and that is comparably significant. And needed to cover the topic of bilateral relations of the small countries like CI or Niue. Thanks for your comments. Jan CZ (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer to that is found here: WP:OSE. You're not allowed to cite the existence of a similar article as justification for this article.  Rather, each article must stand or fall on its own merits. On a quick inspection, I think the article you cited should probably ALSO be deleted. PianoDan (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know WP:OSE of course, but it does not respond to the question of notability criteria for articles about bilateral relations. So far, it is not clear to me. If you answer me, that criterion is, existence of "book or scholarly articles specifically on that relations" showing importance of the topic, and that "existing references are not WP:ROUTINE", OK. Then it will be need to delete most of the articles on bilateral relations. But I'm not sure by just these strict criteria. Jan CZ (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the question you asked in this paragraph, which is why it wasn't responded to. You asked about the difference between an article on Bulgarian-Indonesian relations and this article.  I answered you.  They are very similar, and neither is notable. PianoDan (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - sufficient sources to justify an article. Covered by sources in both countries; coverage (or lack thereof) by third party countries should not be a barrier to this article's existence. Although the article was not encyclopaedia-worthy at the time of AfD nomination I feel it is now legitimate. C 679  22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources are not independent of the topic as required by WP:GNG. That is, source material from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration of the Cook Islands, Embassy of the Czech Republic, are not independent of Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations because such written source material contributes to at least one of the political, economic, or cultural relations between these two countries. The independent of the topic requirement of WP:GNG helps address a problem in that, there are about 195 countries, and each one could be said to have bilateralism with each of the remaining countries. If source material not-independent of the topic could be used, such mere bilateralism would result in a lot of articles (I think it would be 38,025 = 195 x 195 Wikipedia articles, but math was a long time ago) with no evidence of interest in the topic other than Wikipedi editors and those involved in the topic itself. There also are WP:NOT:WP:REDUNDANTFORK problems in that relations from the perspective of the Cook Islands would belong in the Cook Islands article and relations from the perspective of the Czech Republic would belong in the Czech Republic article. So the question becomes from whose perspective is this topic viewed? If there were scholarly source material written specifically addressing the Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations, then perhaps that source could be used to develop a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be (195*194)/2 = 18,915, per Triangular Number. Just so you know. :) PianoDan (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources justify this well-written article. Sources are also third party... There were deficiencies bt now the article is improved. Best, Samuel petan (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this rises to the level of WP:HEY. There's still only 2 secondary sources, and they're both about one visit by the Czech ambassador. PianoDan (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY is a pretty weak reason especially coming from an admin. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Never mind the sources, which probably only add up to "Cook Islands–Czech relations" with a good deal of original synthesis; I would say that the topic is inherently non-notable, along the lines of most "case study" articles that have been deleted in the past. הסרפד  (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 00:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * May I ask you where you found the original synthesis in the article? Jan CZ (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The extra references verify some individual facts, but they do not improve the case for the topic's notability. 1292simon (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2013 (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.