Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark – New Zealand relations (2nd 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   no consensus. NW ( Talk ) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Denmark – New Zealand relations
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Denmark–New Zealand relations 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I note in the last AfD, not one of the keep voters actually provided evidence of significant coverage of relations. Neither country has a resident ambassador and agreements such as working holiday are very common between NZ and most Western countries. I've checked the first 70 of this gnews search and most of it is sporting contests. A newspaper reported a New Zealander visiting Denmark in 1903 which I know of at least 1 editor who would think this advances notablity and must be included, clearly not. yes the 2 countries decided to offer assistance to Vietnam at the same time, but this is more tangential rather than a sign of in depth relations. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the two countries have a significant relationship and, taken together, the sources are sufficient to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - History section describes a significant economic competition between the two countries which influenced the formation of the EEC -- sourced to scholarly journals. There are enough references here to allow the article to remain. I note that the nomination statement presents no policy-based reasons for it to be deleted. — Cactus Writer |   needles  15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - their relations have sown significant history, bilateral agreements, bilateral visits (alhough no state visits), and lots of references, as may be seen from the article. I also note for the record that several of my citations about their sports rivalries were erased from the article in the past six months. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * you are the only one to like listing sporting results in these series of articles. such information is better listed in appropriate national sporting teams articles. given that the number 1 sport in NZ is rugby union and in Denmark is soccer and they are on opposite sides of the world and do not regularly compete against each other, it is pure synthesis to suggest these countries have notable sporting rivalry. Notable sporting rivalries are like Argentina/Brazil, USA/Canada, England/Germany, Australia/NZ and so on. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that I'm not alone in this argument, but even assuming your argument, there are sources out there to prove my point (just check out the history of the article or Google it). Bearian (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * these articles focus on relations between governments, its leaders and trade. my point stands, Denmark and NZ do not have a notable sporting rivalry, they have no major regular bilateral sporting contest like the Bledisloe Cup between Australia and NZ. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete because the article revolves around trivia to create a fictitious topic rather than a topic anyone outside Wikipedia has bothered to notice exists. Just look how the authors strain to make this seem notable: "the New Zealand government describes the relations as 'good'". Think about that: what else might one expect from two small, squishy, socialist-lite states 11,155 miles apart? A few handshakes, some scraps of paper signed (ah, those double taxation avoidance agreements!), and ... that's about it. (Speaking of that agreement: whoever added it has also apparently failed to read WP:PSTS, taking a primary-source document and declaring it to validate a claim about a relationship. But let's not let those pesky policies get in the way, right?) Compare this make-believe pairing with actual ones, like Denmark-China or New Zealand and various Southeast Asian nations, and the difference is striking. - Biruitorul Talk 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you define trivia in a way that everyone who sees it can recognize it? A biography of a living person (BLP) can be defined so that everyone can recognize it, you can use a bot to find the articles on all the living people. Show me how I can set up a bot to find trivia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * doing google searches and finding trivial mentions of any webpage that mentions X and Y is an easy way to find trivia. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whenever you have to use the word you are defining in the definition, you are admitting defeat. When I do a Google search: Denmark "New Zealand" I get 107,000,000 results. Which of those 107,000,000 are trivial and which are important. Tell me how to tell one from the other, other than asking you which ones you like and dislike. That way we can do what you are doing and get the same results. Show me how it is not subjective, so we all come to the same conclusion as we do for who is dead and who is alive. That is a good standard, and even that isn't with 100% certainty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I thought you were experienced at Wikipedia, you might want to look at WP:NOT to see what is not included. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only mention of trivia there is this: "On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time." This article doesn't contain any prices of anything, why would you send me to WP:NOT when it has no relevance to discerning what makes something trivial? I am not following what you are trying to convey at all. Do you want to try again? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant the aspect that refers to "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." LibStar (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The two countries have official visits.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That official visits has been exchanged says nothing either way about the existence of a "Denmark – New Zealand relations" topic. You need to find sources with that or a similar subject, not simply declare the visits as evidence of notable relations. We go by what reliable secondary sources, and not Wikipedians, tell us is a topic. - Biruitorul Talk 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I do not believe that the topic is notable, there are no sources in the article that analyse relations between the two countries (and I can find no others myself). The contents of the article are simply a few occasions when the two countries have had minor interactions. For me this seems similar to having an article on relations between Brad Pitt and Nicole Kidman and listing films that they have worked on together and award ceremonies where they've bumped into each other (I realise that other stuff doesn't exist isn't really a valid argument on its own, I'm just trying to explain my thinking). There are an almost infinite number of things that could be linked together to create articles however the articles should only be created if the link is genuinely notable and has received third party coverage, a few obvious connections does not seem like enough. The fact that two countries have some trade agreements and that representatives from each country have visited the other one does not make the relationship between the countries notable in the same way that the fact that two actors have appeared in some films together does not make the relationship between the actors notable. I don't think that the fact that it's two countries automatically makes it any more notable than if it is two actors. The details of embassy representation and bilateral visits can be covered at Foreign relations of Denmark and Foreign relations of New Zealand, a relations article only needs to exist if there is more to the relationship than these basic points and in this case I do not believe that there is. Mah favourite (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An almanac is only good if it is complete, while this set is not as fact-rich as some others, a relationship does exists, and it covered in reliable media as well as each countries diplomatic website. Wikipedia rarely covers relationships between individuals even if they have a clear one such as marriage. The exceptions are for teams such as the Marx brothers or the Wright brothers. As I argued previously 10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as same 10 facts from a single source. One is easy to compile and the other is more work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While not as extensive as some of the other bilateral articles, it still meets the Wikipedia dual criteria of notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned about verifiability, why have you reinserted information you now know is incorrect? (diff) -- Avenue (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you substitute in the proper word when you find an error, you don't delete. Repair rather than discard. It is a no-brainer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:04, 8 December 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.