Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Republic of the Congo – 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. However absurd the topic, if there are independent sources with significant coverage, then we keep the article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

most of the coverage centres around Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland which is adequately covered in its own article. other than that Norway has provided some aid to Congo but so has most rich European nations. those saying that there must be coverage in respective national newspapers of these relations must provide actual evidence. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * keep he cong has an embassy in Norway, and Norway has even sent them armed forces to supplement their own. If sending troops to support the other countries government isn't foreign relations, I can't think what would qualify. It's a more definite statement of close relations than anything else can possibly be.  DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * sending troops is not a criterion by itself, significant third party indepth coverage is the key test. WP:N WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline reads: "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." You keep changing "significant" to "in-depth" when you paraphrase it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @DGG. At least according to the article, Congo does not have an embassy in Norway. I am missing something? Yilloslime T C  16:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * my error. I struck that part out. The military relations remain sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems both notable and verifiable to me [with its rich confluence of source material from the most reliable sources demanded by Wikipedia rules]. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE, could you please explain how it meets WP:N. thanks LibStar (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Essays are a fun read and write like Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions but Wikipedia only requires that articles be notable and verifiable. I stand by what I wrote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * that's a great argument for keeping Richard. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are reliable sources in the article, but they're about specific incidents, not the general topic of DRC-Norway relations. I think that technically, what we have here is a novel synthesis.  However, I don't think there are very many situations where it's appropriate to remove reliably-sourced material from the encyclopaedia, so the reliable sources ought to be moved, perhaps to Foreign relations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Foreign relations of Norway.  If we do this and delete the article, then attribution must be preserved, so I'm afraid the closing admin needs to perform two history merges.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says in synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." What would the new conclusion be? If I said that the relation was "good" or "bad" or "growing" or "not notable", that would be a new conclusion not in the source material. I don't see that in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable as Norway is one of the main European partners of the Congo, as is shown by the coverage in reliable third-party sources. Pantherskin (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to my expectations, there is substantive information in this article, from reliable sources. Pcap ping  10:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. These articles should be kept as a matter of course. I find it hard to understand what the point is of these nominations. __meco (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "should be kept as a matter of course" is not a criterion for notability. Please explain how it addresses WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you point out that is is notable and verifiable Libstar will just dismiss that too, see my comments above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. Well sourced (meeting therefore WP:GNG) and pretty informative. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mere existence of sources in an article does not establish notability. WP:GNG requires certain types of sources, and sets a standard what kind of coverage is needed in those sources. And this article fails WP:GNG on all counts, therefore it should be deleted. FWIW, this relationship also fails my notability criteria. Yilloslime T C  16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline reads: "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." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yilloslime, I am just getting up to speed on the history of these bilateral relations AfDs, and what you put together at User:Yilloslime/BR seems useful and a step in the right direction in creating a framework for evaluation. What's not as useful (to me) is when you say "WP:GNG requires certain types of sources, and sets a standard what kind of coverage is needed in those sources."  The very debate here seems to be about whether GNG is met, i.e., whether the net coverage here constitutes significant coverage in this case, with a number of editors so far apparently thinking this is the case.  I am certainly not yet satisfied that all relevant coverage has yet been found and reviewed, as I have added a bit to the article already.  I would expect most relevant sources to be in Norwegian.  Do have any further guidance as to how this one does not pass muster?--Milowent (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For me, the crux of the matter is that I've yet see a source that directly address the topic in any detail. My reading of GNG is that you need such sources; sources that address elements of the topic do not suffice. In building an article it's fine to cite primary, non-independent sources, and it's fine to extract relevant facts from books and articles that are about other topics, but for establishing notability we need sources (plural) that are actually about the topic as a whole. To put it another way, what's the difference between being a historian and being an encyclopedian? I think this article like many X-Y relations articles is great example of wikipedians doing the work of historians rather than work of encyclopedians. Does this make sense? Is there an independent source that you think actually directly addresses the topic of these countries relations? Yilloslime T C  19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is your personal interpretation, mathematically 10 facts from 10 sources are identical in their depth as 10 facts from a single source. Of course a single source is easier to cite. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point entirely.Yilloslime T C  20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think I understand your personal distinction, Yilloslime, but it seems hard to apply in a useful fashion.  Any article/source that discusses some relation between DR Congo and Norway is by definition discussing DR Congo - Norway relations.  I see numerous news articles that talk about relations between the countries, even if none of them compile all those relations in one source.  It sounds like your standard is that you want sources that say, in substance, "Here's a summary of the political relationship between DR Congo and Norway."--For example, this book appears to have chapters about Norway's relations with certain countries in southern Africa (but not DR Congo).  No doubt, if such sources are found, notability under GNG is clear.  But I'm not sure that if such sources are not found, that numerous sources discussing various relations between the countries don't establish notability.--Milowent (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If that book had a chapter on Congo-Norway relations I'd certainly consider it to be the kind of direct detailed coverage required by GNG. But a chapter in a book is not the standard I'm advocating. Articles in newspapers, magazines, and journals could also suffice. But I don't think an article about a specific state visit would suffice, unless it puts the visit in the context of the countries' bilateral relations. It doesn't need to provide "a summary of the political relationship between DR Congo and Norway" but there should at least be some indication of what this visit says about the relations. Are their relations good or bad, are they getting better or worse, etc. As I wrote in User:Yilloslime/BR, I'd like to see such a source spend at least a paragraph on the state of relations themselves before I'd consider the coverage to be direct and detailed. (And by paragraph I mean "book paragraphs" (4 or 5 sentences) not "newspaper" paragraphs in which each sentence gets its own paragraph.) I don't accept that an article on a state visit is by definition an also article the countries' relations. An article on Michael Jordan is not necessarily also about the Bulls, and likewise, I hope no one would argue that because articles on Jordan mention that he played basketball at Emsley A. Laney High School this means that Emsley A. Laney High School Boys Basketball Team is also notable. GNG requires a couple of sources on the topic itself, and this seems like a pretty low bar. For bios, all we need are a couple newspaper article about the person, but if a person known specifically for one event (like a crime) we typically have an article about that event rather than about the person. Etc. Does this make sense? Yilloslime T C  01:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I understand where your threshold lies. As happens elsewhere in the project, it seems in practice some editors disagree about how "significant" a source or sources are when a !vote requires a somewhat subjective weighing of sources.  E.g., we get silly debates over whether 4 short sentences are significant but two long sentences are not.  WP:WINE has a similar problem with winery articles, and there is much consternation over articles about marginal wineries which many of the Wine Project members don't feel merit separate articles.  It has caused huge debates, but we are still left with no real consensus on how to treat marginal wineries.  See, e.g., Deletion_review/Valhalla_Vineyards, Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards, Articles for deletion/Morgan Creek Vineyards.  (In that fight, I lean keep for articles with all verifiable content and at least some notability hook (biggest in area, oldest, major awards, etc.), and delete if there is essentially no verifiable content or its more of a directory entry--which is not uncommon in those articles.)
 * Here, I see we have a group of editors that want a bright-line rule that all these bilateral relations articles are notable. A bright-line rule has worked well for high schools, see Notability (high schools) (essay), eliminating much wasted AfD time.  But I see no consensus for a bright line rule here.
 * The folly of the huge "war" going on over these articles is that the end result is just about organization. If Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations is deleted, the separate articles on foreign relations of the two countries can be expanded with the same content, right?--Milowent (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced article on a notable topic.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a little concerning that the nominator is not finding the obviously unencyclopedic articles but is AFDing potentially encyclopedic subjects. Libstar, I recommend you going through Category:Japanese voice actors or Category:Pokemon instead.. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * could you please explain how this article meets WP:N or WP:GNG. secondly the discussion of other sets of articles and the weakness of their notability should be discussed in their own AfDs and thus is irrelevant to this AFD. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Properly footnoted, good veracity, and scholarly in intent. Why is this even nominated for deletion? Carrite (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet another fictitious topic. No, news briefs from almost half a century ago about how Norway refused to build a navy for "the Congo" do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". For that, we need a treatment of the actual topic, under this or a similar name. Of course, no one in the real world has ever paid any scholarly or journalistic attention to the subject, and neither should we. - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Biruitorul, I am open to conversation on the topic, as I saw your name has come up as a frequent delete vote in these AfDs. But much worse articles than this have been kept from my review.--Milowent (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to add an opinion at Australia–Barbados relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * how is this comment relevant to this AfD? people can find other bilateral articles by themselves. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't, it is a friendly notice to get more diverse opinions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those interested in following bilateral relations AfDs can also watchlist WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations--Milowent (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Nom had a fair case at the time he put this up for deletion, but the article has now benefited from substantial improvements folloing attention by editor Richard A Norton. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wildly weak keep solely based on the diplomatic incident section. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You realize that that diplomatic incident already has its own article? Yilloslime T C  17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is a wonderful argument for notability of this article, since it means we definitely talk of a notable incident. Thanks! -- Cycl o pia talk  17:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting take on the situation. To me, that existence of the article makes this one all the more superfluous. I guess if this article is kept, we could merge that one here. Yilloslime T C  18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The relationship between the nations is notable, as proven by ample coverage of things between them.  D r e a m Focus  14:09, 23 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.