Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Republic – Iceland 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Czech Republic – Iceland relations

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

a random combination with no resident embassies and a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral and diplomatic relations, of course there's multilateral and football relations. . there's the first article of that search and the ousting of a spy in 1962 but needs more coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete.Sigh...another random pairing of nations that doesn't demonstrate notability. The countries are notable, nothing showing their relationship is. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia First Pillar says that Wikipedia contains elements of almanacs, and this is a verifiable almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that multiple reliable and independent sources have provided significant coverage of bilateral relations as such between the two countries, so fails WP:N as well as not a directory. Edison (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." It doesn't fit any of the examples given even is you stretch the definitions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to "fit any of the examples given" because it clearly says "loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to)". Do you even read the text you post before you start using it as a basis for discussion?  It contradicts the point you are making.  Clearly these collections of miscellaneous trivial factoids, anything mentioning two countries in the same paragraph, fall under that area of "Wikipedia articles are not:". In fact that is specfically meant to exclude this sort of bricolage. Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize I wasn't aware that "but not limited to" meant anything else you or anyone else reading it desires it to mean, no matter how unrelated it is to "quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." This would be an example of "mentioning two countries in the same paragraph": "Administrations have collapsed in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, and Ireland. Riots and paralyzing strikes have crippled Thailand, France, ..." However, treaties, official visits, and trade and international incidents are the definition of international relations. Go to the US State Department website and see all the information on the US and any other country to see the topics they use. Certainly if it appears on the Czech government website under "Czech Republic – Iceland relations", it is not random trivia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a good reason primary sources can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A primary source of a treaty would be the text of the treaty itself, this is a secondary source. Even then Wikipedia doesn't ban primary sources, it only cautions against original research as you interpret the text. Wikipedia says: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I normally say 'delete' for the two-country themed articles but reading the discussions, this one might be worth keeping.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * could you please give a reason? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that at least one bilateral AfD comes up every day, can't a WP:BilateralNotability be created as part of WP:BILATERAL, rather than applying the standard WP:N to everything? After all, there can be 37,636 or 38,025 such combinations to discuss. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really you need to divide those figures by two to account for Russia-Nauru and Nauru-Russia not being separat articles. Drawn Some (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's 19110 at most, but my point still holds. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable article, notable relations. Article was improved since the nomination and it can be surely improved even more. - Darwinek (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as Darwinek.--Yopie 11:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete De minimis relations, though they both produce lead crystal. When a cite is given for a firm buying a firm in another country -- that shows how shallow the references are. Collect (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing here to highlight relations between these two countries as being exceptional to any other two. Lists of staged state visits and common agreements are not noteworthy or notable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no concept of "exceptional" that is for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "exceptionally non-notable"? -- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - as is by now routine, a "rescue" effort has succeeded only in cluttering up the article with meaningless trivia we'd never pick up on outside this series of nonsense articles, not in actually finding in-depth coverage in independent sources of "Czech Republic – Iceland relations" (think about that concept for a moment and the absurdity it entails). Moreover, half the sources come from the Czech government, violating WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice: It has been suggested that AFDs and other discussions on this and similar articles be suspended. Please have your say on this at AN. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The "rescue" is, as usual, a joke, and the matter stands that this topic has received no coverage in its own rights in outside sources. The material supporting this article, when it is not a primary source saying marginal niceties, is marginalia on various events, synthetized by the "rescuers" to look like something of substance. Dahn (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." No new position is generated beyond that a relationship exist between the two per the title. A new position would be saying that relations are "good" or "bad" based on the names of, or number of, the existing treaties. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've pasted that on other pages too, alongside other interpretations, even though these were answered in detail several times around. I hope your purpose is to exhaust the reader or to canvass the wide-eyed. Dahn (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Point out the "new position" in this particular article to me now. If you are going to use the same argument, you should be expected to be challenged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And one more time, silence instead of a response. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not clear from my other replies, but I won't feed your ceaseless drive to make me repeat myself. If you can't refrain from these comments and really want me to engage me more in conversation, feel free to contact me on my talk page and maybe I'll consider relying for what must be the 50th time. Dahn (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Point out the "new position" in this article to me. I haven't seen your other comments, and you haven't provided links to them here, if they are valid here. I would assume instead of just invoking SYNTHESIS, you would take the time to explain exactly how it violates the rule, or could provide some quote from the SYNTH page to strengthen your interpretation of it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Richard, I don't have to do anything because you ask me to. I have done so already, so have others. You've chosen to ignore that, and took these discussions in circles. Sure, if someone asks me in good faith to explain my position here, I will consider it (they'd have to contact me on my talk page, since I'm not gonna watchlist this page as well). You asking me to do that is another attempt at obscuring the points other make in a cloud of verbosity. Dahn (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Darwinek. --DMG413 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Note: I moved the above signature back to its rightful place after it was found languishing at the title and causing formatting problems within the day log page -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This one has enough material. The SYN argument does not reasonably apply to this sort of material. If information about a treaty #1 between A and B is published in a RS, and information about a treaty #2 between them is published in another RS, we can put them in one article. Of course, if the treaty is important enough to have specific commentary about it by itself, we could make a separate article about each treaty. DGG (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Enough" by what standard? What if there had been just 7 instead of 8 visits, or 6 instead of 7 pieces of paper signed between them? Were relations notable prior to the Hamé deal? How about using the "multiple, independent, significant coverage of the topic" standard instead of the "enough material" one? - Biruitorul Talk 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said, its fine for an almanac entry.  D r e a m Focus  16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No Almanac I've ever seen had any entries looking anything like this... Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;" C  01:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No Encyclopedia I've ever seen had any entries looking anything like 95% of Wikipedia, that why the others are dead, and Wikipedia is the number one reference source in the world. Wikipedia adapted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where there is a first time for everything.  D r e a m Focus  08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete another mindless combinatorial article (if x is notable and y is notable then the intersect of x and y isn't necessarily notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddy1981 (talk • contribs) 23:24, June 15, 2009
 * Strong keep Can't believe this was actually nominated for deletion in the first place, although there has been a great improvement since it was first nominated. However, the nominator knew that an aspect of the relations of these two countries had been extensively covered by the press: a Czech spy was expelled from Iceland. Thank you to Richard Arthur Norton (1985- ) for finding the NYT source. There are a significant number of bilateral agreements and official state visits, the existence of which have been verified and the notability of which have been established by the existence of significant independent 3rd party sources. The notability and verifiability of the subject matter of this article have been conclusively established in my opinion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First, he was actually a Czechoslovak spy. Second, does that have any contextual relevance? Do we, for instance, mention every instance of spy expulsions that happened during the course of Soviet Union – United States relations? Of course not. But here, since the topic isn't actually notable, we need to find trivia to fill the void and create the appearance of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 09:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per a total lack of independent sources that discuss this topic directly and in detail. Sure, there are about 7 reliable, independent sources cited in the article, but none of them directly address the topic of article (bilateral relations). Yilloslime T C  05:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. For now at least. The volume of these articles flowing through doesn't seem to match the concern that these articles are actually doing any harm and are actually not notable. After a notability policy, or any working agreement on how to treat these subjects is reached thena civil merging process should be entertained. This is valid information that we certainly would want on some article so keep is the default. If there is a list article this would likely be too big for it.  -- Banj e  b oi   11:49, 16 June 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.