Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–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   redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia.  MBisanz  talk 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–New Zealand relations

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

another random country pairing, even the NZ government notes a very limited relationship. Estonia covers NZ from its Japanese embassy! LibStar (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it says a lot that Estonia's relations with New Zealand are handled 5,770 miles away from Wellington in Tokyo. We should give it about as much importance as they do, and delete, in the absence of sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul Talk 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete One of the measures of these type of articles is the importance voiced by the two nations involved. The foreign ministries of both nations are refreshingly honest about the lack of a relationship (from links in the articles): "Relations between Estonia and New Zealand have not been very close, primarily due to distance separating the countries. Nevertheless, relations have been friendly and good."  and "Although bilateral ties are limited, Estonia's strong economy, EU membership and close ties with its Scandinavian and Baltic neighbours make it of increasing relevance to New Zealand."  Kind of like, "Yeah, I know them... they're all right." Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, if Estonia can only be bothered to send a foreign minister to visit New Zealand it's a sure sign that they care nothing about the relationship. Even visits by heads of state are routine and highly staged. IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your argument. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. If relations between these two countries are not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of New Zealand. The content currently available does not appear to merit a separate article, and is better understood in the context of the overview articles.  However, there seems to be possibility for further developments, so we may need to restore this article in the future. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with IfYouDontMind. Canvasback (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IfYouDontMind's argument is flawed. How many times has the US Secretary of State or the UK foreign minister actually visited Australia this century, in a bi-lateral visit rather than as a part of a global or regional summit? In the case of the British foreign minister, less that the number times the Estonian foreign minister visited New Zealand. A foreign minister making a bilateral visit to a country isn't demonstratively a "routine event". Martintg (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your thinking flies in the face of consensus, which was clearly established at Articles for deletion/Greece-Nepal relations Canvasback (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Canvasback (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Canvasback (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus from previous AfD debates is for merging of these articles into Foreign relations of Xxxxxx articles if they fail the notability criteria but the relationship is more that just some random pairing created by some editor. Martintg (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fairly random to me. Or rather, indiscriminate. Canvasback (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess this entry just randomly appeared? As I said before, there 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian Foreign Ministry lists only 72 with which it maintains bilateral relations. Not indescriminate. Martintg (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the top 36.5% of Estonia's foreign relations, whoop-dee-doo. I withdraw my !vote in the face of this irrefutable proof of non-indiscriminateness. Canvasback (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that some bilateral agreements exist, one cannot assert that this relationship will never likely be able to assert notability in the future. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion . Given that some bilateral agreements exists, there is scope for future development, even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time. Re-directs are cheap. Martintg (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:21, 27 April 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.