Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark–Philippines 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   speedy keep by precedent and consensus. According to past discussions here at AfD, bilateral relations of medium-sized nation-states are per se notable. The overwhelming consensus below is that this particular case is clearly notable. Plenty of reliable sources exists in the article already to prove the notability of the International relations between these two nations. The nomination smacks of disliking one part of the article, focusing on incendiary religious controversy, when neither nation has a majority Muslim population. The article has been rescued by adding additional sources. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Denmark–Philippines relations

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

the fact that neither country has resident embassies says something about their relations. as the article stands, 2 of the 3 sources merely verify the existence of non resident embassies. most of the coverage relates to Philippine Muslims being upset about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per long term relations and fairly significant current trade relations. An organization of Filipina women operates in Denmark, which demonstrates the rather larger scale migration of Filipinos to Denmark and the sources demonstrating the loans combined with the fact that relations are almost 65 years old demonstrate long term notability. The fact that a small country like Denmark and a relatively poor country like the Philippines do not currently have embassies in each others capitals is not a sign of lack of notability.--TM 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep—this is getting quite boring, LibStar: when will you start following WP:BEFORE? What is wrong with this for instance? Most of the coverage relates to Philippine Muslims being upset about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy – so what? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster  ─╢ 09:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: lack of relevant reliable third party coverage to establish notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Per TreasuryTag reasoning. Also references has established the written facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Also references has established the written facts" but not necessarily notability. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   chat 18:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Firstly, there is no rationale for a speedy keep here per WP:SK, so !voting Speedy Keep in this case is essentially the same as a Strong Keep (which is itself no different than just Keep). Secondly, the sources in the article and the source presented by TT above do show that there are Filipinos living in Denmark (and probably Danes living in the Philippines), but that's not really what this article is about.  This article is about the connection between the two nations, in particular their governments, and I'm not seeing much of a connection there.  The relationship doesn't seem to pass the informal guidelines at WikiProject International relations.  Snotty Wong   chat 18:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll bite... There is no rationale for a speedy keep here per WP:SK, so !voting Speedy Keep in this case is essentially the same as a Strong Keep (which is itself no different than just Keep). OK, whatever. Scarcely relevant here, though, since the closing admin will likely have read WP:SK. The relationship doesn't seem to pass the informal guidelines at WikiProject International relations. That informal guideline – informal guideline – is not the be-all-and-end-all. WP:GNG can and does apply. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  pikuach nefesh  ─╢ 18:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an informal guideline, but it seems to be a pretty reasonable one. It would certainly help your case if this article passed at least one criterion from that informal guideline.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 19:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would certainly help your case if this article passed at least one criterion from that informal guideline. No. No. No. You are completely wrong. So long as the subject meets the GNG then it is notable. There is no concept of "helping one's case" or anything of the sort, especially from a guideline which is not a guideline. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  voice vote  ─╢ 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I'm not advocating that we treat the wikiproject's notability guidelines as gospel, but I think that completely ignoring them because they haven't been personally autographed by Jimbo himself is overly bureaucratic.  In my opinion, GNG hasn't been passed.  You can find any number of sources which include both of the words "Denmark" and "Philippines", but what we're looking for are sources which significantly cover the relationship between the governments of both countries.  Obviously it is trivial to find sources which say that there are Filipinos living in Denmark, and Koreans living in South Africa, and Australians living in Iceland, but those sources don't document a notable relationship between the countries (which, after all, is what these bilateral relations articles are about).  The fact that Filipino Muslims are angry about a Danish cartoon has nothing to do with the relationship between the governments of the two countries (especially when you consider that all Muslims, no matter from what country, were angered by that cartoon).  Snotty Wong   express 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is getting ridiculous and disruptive. The calls for speedy keep here not only have good reason for doing so, I would say they are valid even. Regardless, per TM and Treasury, there is notability on the subject, sources can be found easily if nom would bother looking beforehand. I feel like a broken record. Outback the koala (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's ridiculous and disruptive is the fact that people feel the need to create articles on non-existent subjects. Please post links to sources which document a notable relationship between the governments of Denmark and the Philippines.  Also, please let us know which criterion of WP:SK you believe this nomination satisfies in order for a speedy keep to be "valid".  Snotty Wong   chat 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Copenhagen Post: Ministry paring down numbers of Filipino Au Pairs and A good opportunity. Apparently 70% of au pairs in Denmark are Filipina. A bilateral agreement regulates this. FYI for future interested parties, the Copenhagen Post is an English language online newspaper in Denmark with a very searachable website.--TM 03:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a minor immigration issue which affects about 2000 people. See WikiProject_International_relations for examples of events which constitute a notable relationship between countries.  Snotty Wong   chatter 15:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, a bilateral agreement affecting migrant laborers and significant coverage of that issue in a major national newspaper seems like a strong indication of notable relations to me.--TM 15:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability arises from specific circumstances, and, once it arises, for Wikipedia purposes it is permanent. This is the same as in other cases--the IR of all pairs of medium sized nations is notable.    DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * where is the WP policy/guideline which says "all pairs of medium sized nations is notable. "? Is this a case of inventing criterion to suit the AfD? LibStar (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a case of suggesting an criterion to meet one of the common situations, based on the inevitable finding of sources for the articles of that class.   DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a case of suggesting blanket criteria where no WP:CONSENSUS for such criteria exists, based generally on an "inevitable" thin sprinkling of tangential sources, mere mentions and search-hits. Such lax criteria result in poor precedents, like 'keep all high schools', which in turn result in DYSFUNCTIONAL AfD keeps -- like WP:Articles for deletion/Colombo International School -- kept WITHOUT A SINGLE SOURCE in either the article or the AfD. Therefore my !vote is also to reject the proposed "all pairs of medium sized nations is notable" criteria. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a case of suggesting blanket criteria where no WP:CONSENSUS for such criteria exists – so rather like the WikiProject guidelines then? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  assemblyman  ─╢ 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wikiproject criteria have at least a localised consensus and are not blanket. I would note that Denmark and the Philippines (i) have never engaged in a war (ii)do not have significant trade, (iii) are not/were not allies, (iv) do not share a border, (v) have not been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict & (vi) have not been engaged in a significant trade dispute. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per my comment on the talk this is not policy. These are at most suggestions and your opinion of what is notable. Outback the koala (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) They are FAR more authoritative and rational than DGG's less-than-credible "all pairs of medium sized nations is notable". (ii) Lacking any of the significant relationships on that list, we're likely to be left with a WP:IINFO grab-bag of minutiae, not an encyclopaedic article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are FAR more authoritative and rational than DGG's less-than-credible "all pairs of medium sized nations is notable". I'm afraid not. At worst, they are equally inauthoritative. You opine – without explanation or rationale – that DGG's position is "less-than-credible" which is, ironically, a phrase perfectly describing your argument that WikiProject ramblings are to be regarded as anything more concrete than any contrary ramblings from anyone else. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  constablewick  ─╢ 09:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will take WP:NOTPOLICY over "less than credible" any day. It is "less than credible" because it is a dogmatic and overly-broad generalisation, and because it is not even close to being substantiated by the utter trivia being served up here. I fully expect that, at one of these 'bilateral relations' AfD that somebody will eventually present a birthday card sent by one government to the head of state of the other as demonstrating the notability of the relationship, and waxing lyrically how this card represents the blah-de-blah-blah of this 'profound' relationship. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, then, that the vast majority of arguments here disagree with you... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  most serene  ─╢ 14:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm almost as impressed by me-too-ism as I am by dogmatic assertions. Opinions are like arseholes -- everybody's got one. That does not make them well-informed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The wit is certainly on display today. Outback the koala (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * keep i see good sources here... Arskwad (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep According to the article, one nation gave the other a considerable amount of money. I doubt they just pick a nation at random to throw money at like that, they obviously having a notable relation.   D r e a m Focus  15:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says no such thing. It merely mentions that they had a small amount of trade, and that at one stage (back in the 1970s), Denmark extended the Philippines a small line of credit to purchase Danish goods. The amounts involved are/were tiny in comparison to either nation's GDPs. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article does not specify an amount to the loans at all. Outback the koala (talk) 18:32, 7 December 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.