Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Summing up the arguments for keeping: An accusation of bad faith (Lugnuts) seems inaccurate; disregarded. "I think we should have a very low threshold for keeping these articles" (meco) is WP:ILIKEIT; disregarded. "Repeat AfDs are disruptive" (Dream Focus, Pcap, Dr. Blofeld) is untrue for reasonable cases, which this appears to be; disregarded. Accusations of personal vendetta (Carrite); disregarded. "All (X) are notable" (Dr. Blofeld) is simply not consensus for almost all cases of X, and based on AfD discussions, it seems clear that bilateral relations are not among the exceptions; disregarded. That leaves assertions that sufficient reliable sources exist. Summing up the arguments for deleting: An assertion that the sources in use are not secondary and/or do not cover the subject in enough depth; that the article is a WP:SYN or a collection of factoids. After reviewing the sources, I find these arguments persuasive. Take, for instance, the Reuters source -- reliable, certainly, but the content is this: "The changes were aimed at making Norwegian shipping rules more like those in the European Union, but industry groups have said the move might force some to register in tax havens such as Bermuda or Cyprus." I reject the assertion that the mere mention of Cyprus makes this an article on the topic of Cyprus-Norway relations; it is clearly not. (And yes, I can already see the DRV coming.) Shimeru (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus–Norway relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

neither country has embassies, could not find anything on trade between countries, the size of aid is merely less than 5 million Euros. according to this last agreement was in 1963 which means the Governments and leaders are not that interested in ongoing relations. I could only find an article on tax minimisation, but many rich people (and companies) set up in lower taxed countries worldwide. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep That was the rationale you used when you first listed this article @ AfD. Seems a pointy nomination to me.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have expanded my reasoning in reference to trade, aid, tax minimisation and a lack of sources. your argument contains no evidence in addressing WP:N and WP:GNG and is therefore WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's a clearly notable subject with plenty of WP:RS. Hence the keep.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Are there articles for Norwegian and Cypriot foreign relations? If so, perhaps a merge would work.  - BalthCat (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced and enough information for a standalone article. The dollar amounts and the years don't matter, all that matters is what number or year is reported in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - at first glance it might not appear to be notable, but apparently there are reliable sources discussing Cyprus–Norway relations in detail. Pantherskin (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Plenty of sources indicating the existence of the bilateral relations. Also there are reliable sources for Cyprus as a tax-haven for Norwegians including a colony of retirees in Pafos. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how the image adds much value to this article given that it features no notable people or features. It is merely a bunch of people having lunch and therefore its justification for use is questionable. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on the rule. Would the article on cats have to have a famous cat, or can any cat be the image for the article on cats? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * if the article is about persian cats then a picture of a cat is appropriate. But a picture of a bunch of non notable people having lunch? LibStar (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The picture is pointless. Yilloslime T C  01:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * picture has now been removed for a very good reason as in this edit . LibStar (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think we should keep a very low threshhold for keeping these articles. By me the article has quite enough for it to remain. __meco (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The same nominator has been renominating articles that he failed to have deleted a year ago. Please stop doing this.  You are just wasting everyone's time.  I'm going to just copy and paste what I said last time, since its the same discussion over again.  The AFD a year ago did end in Keep, by the way.   D r e a m Focus  22:42, 15 May 2010 (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)
 * Delete - No notability established by reliable sources for these relations. Simply listing treaties and other agreements and calling it a "relation" is synthesis. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced and useful article. WP:synth exists to prevent a special type of Original Research where sourced  are synthetic  combined to form novel conclusions.  There is nothing novel about suggesting these two nations have a relationship!  For human relationships,  folk might sometimes talk about the quality of the relationship itself in abstract or poetic terms. In contrast,  for bilateral relationships,  serious non trivial discussions invariably refer to concrete diplomatic events such as agreements and treaties.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is padded with a moderate number of sources that are primary, non-independent, and/or not really about the subject of the article, but has no sources that fulfill the WP:GNG requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There's a difference between being a historian and an encyclopedian, and if we're going to be mindful of it, we should delete this page and only create an article on this topic once coverage of the topic itself actually exists in reliable, independent sources. FWIW, these relations also fail my criteria for notability of bilateral relations. Yilloslime T C  01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any primary sources used, can you please point one out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well referenced and informative article. The nomination is based on the nominator's own opinion on what notability standards should be for these articles. In the absence of specific guidelines, WP:GNG applies, and this article passes that test. Repeatedly nominating articles on personal standards is WP:DISRUPTION. The nominator is advised to write his standards as a guideline proposal and conduct an RfC for its adoption instead of these repeated nominations. Pcap ping  10:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep International relations are notable. Agree with Pcap. There are so much better things people could be getting on with that these repeated nominations.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GAL. Properly-sourced, verifiable, neutral, factually accurate. Wikipedia is not paper, the inclusion of articles on esoteric topics impinges in no way on any individual's WP experience. Why is this even being considered for deletion? Is this a personal vendetta being played out in public? I wonder... Please STOP harassing the esoteric bilateral relations articles! Carrite (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know articles (i.e. electrons) were subject to protection from harassment. - Biruitorul Talk 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The users who value them are. - BalthCat (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - once again, a fictitious topic that no amount of trivia will be able to validate without evidence of its actually having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. And could RAN please stop abusing fair use of images? Uploading a copyrighted image of some random people having lunch in order to prove one's case at AfD marks a new low. - Biruitorul Talk 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Random people would be William Thornton Kemper, Sr. and Nicolai Fechin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That last bit is off topic and not particularly constructive or civil. - BalthCat (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * it's not off topic, insertion on a picture was discussed above in the AfD as pointless and part of a desperate attempt to save this article by inserting a picture of non notable people having lunch. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a pathetic attempt to dress up the article with facts and figures and other nonsense. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant Facts and figures of bilateral relations are welcome but pictures of non notable people having lunch is about as good as the time you inserted student of country X being attacked in country Y as somehow furthering the case for X-Y relations. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any Wikipedia rule that says that the individuals in a notable NGO have to themselves be notable to be in an image. Not everyone gets to be a Bono. Does this cat and mouse have to be as famous as Tom and Jerry or a star from Cats (musical) to be used in the article on cats? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a limit to what is useful, consensus has shown in this AfD that the picture of these people having lunch is close to pointless. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are over 15 people commenting, I only see you and Biruitorul complaining about the image. If you want to start a new thread on your concept of people-in-images-have-to-be-notable themselves, go ahead. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: passes WP:GNG with flying colours. I endorse Pcap comment of asking the nom to submit a guideline to RfC instead of keeping trying disruptive AfD's. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The same old mundane agreements about double taxation and "we recognize you". The non-notable functioning of bureaucrats. Nothing significant that couldn't easily be merged into the respective "Foreign relations of" articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Continual renomination of an article in hopes of getting the result you want is reason enough to not delete it, and instead to look at ways of improving it. And I don't see any rule that says two countries have to be at war to have a "relations" article about them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * could you explain how it meets WP:N and WP:GNG, I certainly did not support the 2nd renomination. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bugs, in all fairness, the first nom was over a year ago and the second one was a procedural close, which LibStar didn't even do. So saying he is "continually renominating it" isn't really that accurate. He renominated it once, over a year later. No speed record there. Of course we also know that consensus can change....Niteshift36 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, by getting different voters. Truth to tell, at first I assumed this article was a joke. Looks like it's not, in fact, a joke. One complaint somewhere was something about, "if we had all country X - country Y combinations, it would be like 20,000." That's a totally irrelevant argument, unless we're running out of disk space or something. In fact, it could be useful to have all those combinations available. (The rules of Third Normal Form come to mind here.) As a reader, I might want to see the status of relations between the US and Canada, or the UK and Argentina, or maybe even Cyprus and Norway. And if you don't have it here, what's the alternative? To post it in TWO articles? So much for the savings in disk space! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks Niteshift, a keep !vote should be based on how an article meets WP:N or WP:GNG not simply complaining about renomination. please keep your arguments relevant to WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bugs, we can agree to disagree about the notability of the article, but I think we can both agree that a span of 13 months between nominations that were allowed to run their course doesn't really count as "continual renomination", can't we? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To my mind, it does. What's different 13 months ago from now? That you managed to get different voters? If the article were truly junk, it would have been gone long ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh Bugs, you know that the premise of "if it was junk, it would be gone" is bunk. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also the death by 1,000 cuts approach, such as the repeated attempts to remove the images from the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And oddly, I see your repeated insertion of irrelevant material as being a corollary to that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The picture's relevance would be improved if the context were a little clearer. It seems to be composed of Norwegians visiting Cyprus. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) Something's amiss with the "not notable" argument. If two nations' relationships are "not notable", it raises the argument that the nations themselves are "not notable". I don't think that works here. In fact, what we should have, to be as informative as possible, is all 20,000 of those "relationship" articles, or at least redirects if the subject is covered elsewhere. For example, I don't think there's an article about the relationship between the UK and Sealand, but the subject is sufficiently covered in the Sealand article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Baseball Bugs! Our project is one of the few information stores in the world with the potential resource to capture the whole set of ~20,000 relationships, which would be a very pleasing and usesful achievement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. If the closer discounts everyone who is claiming any relation article is notable (the ongoing general dispute, and the Afd record on several other such articles is prima facie evidence this is not the case), and if they also discount all the arguments to avoid being given above by various people, then he has no option but to delete this article, because the deleters are the ones pointing out how it miserably fails our criteria for inclusion. Some suggest it is 'well referenced'. So? This is not the sole bar for inclusion here, as everybody surely knows if they are being honest. The article itself does not say one substantial thing that suggests this specific relation has been noted in independent third party sources as a topic. It is a collation of various referenced factoids, which absolutely does not translate into a coherent topic of a notable bi-lateral relation. And let's not forget that the information is not 'lost' if this article is deleted, what little of worthy substance there is here, would simply be moved to the more appropriate location, which is not this random intersection, because a lot of this info is not exclusive to the Cyprus-Norway relation alone. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As per above, a serious discussion of a bilateral relationship largely focuses on the concrete diplomatic events and other exchanges between the two peoples. What you seem to be dismissing as factoids is the very stuff that international relations are made of. GNG does not require sources to address whole subject in detail . A function of a tertiary source like our encyclopaedia is to collate information from secondary soruces, and thus often to produce an article more comprehensive in scope than any one source. As WP:Notability put its: ** “ Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. ** The references provided easily meet this requirement. And while several of the sources may not be independent or secondary, enough of them are to easily meet all the GNG requirements. Information may not be destroyed if we delete the article – but it very much would be lost. Information theory emphasises the importance of adequate retrieval mechanisms. A bilateral relations article allows us to gather all the important facts for a relationship in one place, which may be of great utility for different types of reader - individuals from country Z interested in Y for personal reasons, enterprises exploring opportunities for further trade, diplomatic staff looking for common ground to form coalitions of the willing to tackle issues at international conferences...  FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your reading of notability, and the purpose of Wikipedia as a tertiary information source, is way off. I think your explanation of who would be looking for this random collection, and why, is just bizarre. The GNG absoltuely does require evidence of a discussion of the topic as a whole. Where you see significant coverage of a relation in sources, I see significant coverage of the actual subjects dealt with by the sources, which isn't the bi-lateral relation. By all means create articles on the tax status of cyprus, or the shipping regulations of the EU, or whatever else, but don't pretend that their topical relation, as presented in this article, is anything but an invention of Wikipedia, rather than simply being reflected by Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The fact that the coverage is spread over a number of only loosely connected events has no impact on whether the topic is notable. As for the last agreement betweeen the countries being in 1963, remember that notability is not temporary. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per and, in paticular, the criteria developed by . The article's content is tenuous and not adequately supported by germane reliable sources. Finally, I entirely agree with the statement from  – "Some suggest it is 'well referenced'. So? This is not the sole bar for inclusion here, as everybody surely knows if they are being honest. The article itself does not say one substantial thing that suggests this specific relation has been noted in independent third party sources as a topic. It is a collation of various referenced factoids, which absolutely does not translate into a coherent topic." ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 15:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when are idiosyncratic criteria of a single user a policy or a guideline? If Yilloslime wants to submit its guideline in a RfC and manage it to be an exception to WP:GNG, then fine, but it's not happened yet. About germane RS, I endorse Feydhuxtable comments above. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall using the phrase "policy" or "guideline" in relation to the criteria. You may dismiss them as idiosyncratic but I found them perceptive and insightful, and agree with their substance.
 * My reference to them was simply a shorthand for saying, "I agree entirely with the argument which was so eloquently put forth, on this page and on another, within the User: namespace, by ," which I thought would be simple and clear. How I was mistaken. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► CANUKUS ─╢ 15:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it was very simple and clear. It is simply not a cogent argument for deletion, because it refers to criteria that are not based in policy nor guidelines, no matter how "perceptive and insightful" you feel they are (I personally find them "myopic and superficial" but that's just my opinion). -- Cycl o pia talk  15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. But if I'd just stated the substance of this guidelines in my own words, in a stand-alone argument on an AfD page, like very editor's argument in every AfD, that would have been acceptable? Come off it! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Woolsack ─╢ 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been the same, quite obviously. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My criteria are basically just a restatement of WP:GNG with the addition of the WP:COMMONSENSE criteria that if countries share a border or fought a war against each other or one colonized the other than their relations are inherently notable. The only novel part is saying that if countries don't have embassies then their relations are not notable. This is based on my observations, having participated in dozens of these AfDs, that when there are no embassies, there are never independent sources covering the the countries' relations directly and in detail. So the topic fails GNG. If editors would prefer that I (and whoever else agrees with these criteria) transclude the page in AfDs rather than simply linking to it, I'm happy to oblige, but it seems unnecessary. Yilloslime T C  15:59, 21 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.