Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway 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. BJ Talk 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus–Norway relations

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

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. last agreement in 1963! LibStar (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - utterly inane, not to say insane, pairing. Zero indication of notability, unsurprisingly. - Biruitorul Talk 05:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure. The foreign relations here are not particularily strong, but after reading this page from the Norwegian embassy in Athens (this one handles the Cyprus relations as well), there does exist some potential to expand the article if needed. According to this (primary) source, Norway has given financial support to the UN force on Cyprus, and financial support for peace negotiations. On economics, tourism matters, as about 58 000 Norwegians visited the Island in 2007, and there are several Norwegian retirees who live in Cyprus during the winter. Fishing and shipping industry is also in place on Cyprus. Whether such relations are sufficient for notability is less clear. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for locating that page, but a) yes, it does fail the "Independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG; b) even so, to the extent Norway's involvement in Cyprus peacekeeping is notable, I wonder if we could cover it at UNFICYP. A lot of countries have even sent troops there, but if that's all there is to it, we may as well handle it there. Also, there's a Tourism in Cyprus article if the bit about tourists is important enough to mention there. - Biruitorul Talk 06:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The countries should have some relations, but there's not enough discussion of them to pass WP:N. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.Edison (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also stale: the copying and pasting from one AfD to the next. Sorry, but editors should address each AfD individually; such general comments are best reserved for the workgroup. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not required to craft a unique thousand word essay to explain that each similar robostub fails the same guidelines. Edison (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: if we limit ourselves to only creating articles for the relations between the 194 nations widely recognised as independent, we'll only have a very reasonable 18,721 entries. Once the list is complete, they wont be random pairings but a glorious, comprehensive compendium of information on this topic. An incomparable , valuable resource that will be of benefit to global trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since I see no evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up with more sources per Sjakkalle. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOHARM for why that's an invalid argument. - Biruitorul Talk 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the top of that page: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." thanks for your opinion. Ikip (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources have been added showing Norways contributions to Cyprus,including significant efforts to reduce her bi - communal tensions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What relevance does the added trivia have? Is the notion of a notable relationship validated by any in-depth coverage of that relationship as such? - Biruitorul Talk 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The relationship is relevant to the highly noteable Turkish / Greek divide, as its led Norway to make efforts to intercede.  And a  multi  million euro funding stream goes a long way in somewhere like Cyprus.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The relationship between any nation is notable, and if you checked for entries in the newspaper from those countries, you'd surely find plenty of mention. So far, the article list the financial connection Norway has with this small nation.  That sounds like something noteworthy to me. ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫   D r e a m Focus  01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all bilateral relations are notable - let's get that straight. And please, asking editors to look at newspapers in Greek and Norwegian on the chance "there might be sources" is not very productive - it's "keep" voters who have the burden of demonstrating notability through sources they actually find. And the financial assistance, in isolation and out of context, counts as trivia. - Biruitorul Talk 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It proves that the country has a notable relationship, if one nation is giving money to another, that alone validating the existence of this article.  D r e a m Focus  05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what we need is significant coverage of the relationship itself - not bits of news individual Wikipedians have inferred "prove" anything. - Biruitorul Talk 05:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Smile a While (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Norway and Cyprus have two of the largest merchant fleets in Europe, making them competitors. Also, many Cypriot-registered ships are Norwegian owned. (Looked for, but couldn't find anything on Norse or Norwegian colonies or attacks on Cyprus.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * do you have a citation for "many Cypriot-registered ships are Norwegian owned". LibStar (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. No secondary sources referenced in the article. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago he copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Sjakkalle. notable relations. Ikip (talk) 02:08, 5 May 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.