Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark–New Zealand 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. BJ Talk 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Denmark–New Zealand relations

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

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. very limited relationship. NZ government says There is a small Danish community in this country, descended from a group of early settlers who came out to clear thick North Island bush in the middle years of last century!!! LibStar (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - other than vague hints the two countries know about each other, there's no evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - high-level visits, bilateral agreements, both are allies of the United States. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) There has been scientific cooperation on environmental research.  Bearian (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)  I've added more information and cites.  This can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you didn't use primary sources (which in this case breaches WP:GNG) and found sources dealing with the relationship itself, rather than random bits of information you consider to demonstrate its notability. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Pending Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banj e  b oi   23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establish a guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. Luckily a group has started to do that at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations includinga task force specifically to address these issues. Hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out a more appropriate solution.  -- Banj e  b oi   01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever sources are used here either breach WP:GNG (primary sources) or WP:SYNTH, using random trivia to construct the appearance of notability where none has been confirmed by reliable secondary sources. - Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my assessment of this article's potential compared to yours varies enough that we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a subject that is plenty notable and a good faith effort to add sourcing. I have little doubt that plenty more is available. Newspapers, books and journals are chock full of information just like this. The rest remains regular editing. -- Banj e  b oi   09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is plenty of sourced content on the relationship between these two nations, thus passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 23:03, 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) 23:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability does not exist in a vacuum. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  So notability can never be satisfied without sources.  You can't just mechanically create 20,000 stubs and hope for someone to establish notability later by seeking reliable source coverage.  Gigs (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOHARM for why that's an invalid argument. - Biruitorul Talk 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The relationships mentioned in the article seem to be not particularly notable, and the sources are largely primary, bordering on original research. Gigs (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no original research in this article as far as I can see. The text is all based on sources which are not Wikipedia editors. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you review WP:GNG, which mandates independent and in-depth coverage of the subject, both of which are lacking here. - Biruitorul Talk 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that has to do with the claim there is WP:OR in this article, but I'm very familiar with WP:GNG, thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, may I ask how it is that links 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12 manage to fail the "independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG, and how come links 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 fail its "significant coverage" requirement? For someone endorsing an article where at least 11 out of the 12 sources used fail the GNG (it's only that I can't access link 8, but I assume that too fails), you don't seem "very familiar" with them. - Biruitorul Talk 02:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of them are original research. That's what this thread is about.  That's the claim I was responding to.  Since you seemed to have trouble comprehending that, here is the response again in bold. "There is no original research in this article as far as I can see.  The text is all based on sources which are not Wikipedia editors." Unless you'd like to affirm Gig's claim that there is original research in this article, you're going completely off topic to my response and simply repeating your reasons you want this article deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's rather tendentious, refusing to answer my points because they're in the "wrong place", but OK, I've reposted them below. - Biruitorul Talk 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - links 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12 fail the "independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG, and links 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 fail its "significant coverage" requirement. I can't access link 8, but I assume that too fails. So we're very far from having an article that even comes close to meeting the GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 02:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- following the considerable improvements by Bearian and avenue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, except that none of the sources are both independent of the subject or provide significant coverage, as required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 19:36, 1 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. ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫  D r e a m Focus  01:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually, precedent establishes pretty clearly that not all bilateral relations are notable, and the burden of proof is on "keep" voters to adduce reliable sources backing their claims, not to make some unfalsifiable appeal regarding the possible existence of sources that may never see the light of day. - Biruitorul Talk 05:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no precedent in wikipedia. That's now how it works.  And there are plenty of sources listed in that article, plus the content itself, which indicates it is clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory, each new discussion is a clean slate, but for how things really work, see WP:OUTCOMES. Numerous past outcomes have established bilateral relations not to be notable, and if you want to change that, you have a lot of minds to convince. And again, no matter how many times you say the subject is "clearly notable", failing the inclusion of sources in conformity with WP:GNG, it's still not notable. - Biruitorul Talk 05:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Along with others, I've found a few independent sources dealing with the topic tangentially or in passing, but I don't believe we have anything that really meets the notability guidelines. -- Avenue (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - article now seems even further improved, with 12 sources to help establish noteability. (sorry for voting twice) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the user has already voted once. - Biruitorul Talk 18:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Embassy in Canberra. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which isn't in New Zealand, and the existence of which is already documented at Diplomatic missions of Denmark. - Biruitorul Talk 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While we are at this, someone should start the article on Latvia-Australia relations. Highly notable, even though presentation is only by a Honorary Consul. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable independent sources discuss this relationship in any depth beyond the trivial. THe article at the moment almost entirely consists of primary sources, and the fact that the second graph is already grasping with "the two have a bilateral agreement on double taxation" indicates the low level of notability here. Generally, when two countries not at war don't have full embassies, it's a sign of a minor, non-notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. Ikip (talk) 02:16, 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.