Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Tunisia 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Tunisia relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nominating for deletion a 2nd time, in the first AfD a lot of the keep votes were quite unconvincing. simply having a few minor agreements doesn't show notable relations. coverage seems to be only multilateral, non resident embassies as well. English search, French search which all it shows is played volleyball in 2003. and please don't tell me a 1 off sports match should be included in the article. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "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.
 * Delete per nom: WP:N isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge content to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Tunisia. While the relations are notable, there is no need for a separate article. -- Sander Säde  12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect or transfiguration into an un-needed disambiguation page. That this article was already "beefed up" at the last AfD and that notability for the bilateral relations does not exist is made very clear by the substance of the article as well as by the lack of in-depth coverage of the relationship in independent reliable sources.  Note that government websites could be used to verify information but not to establish notability.  The basic gist of the article, that there is an honorary consulate for the purposes of increasing tourism, should be covered in the foreign relations or tourism article for Tunisia. Drawn Some (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as above -- the whole bunch should meet notability as a group  Collect (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is better handled at Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Tunisia, per the emerged consensus on handling these pages. JJL (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone above. Bilateral relations, even when well sourced, are not inherently notable. The only notability criteria that enjoy consensus and are applicable to this topic are the general notability criteria, and these require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (In other words, coverage on the governments' websites doesn't establish notability, nor do trivial, passing mentions in newspaper articles.) If I'm wrong, I request the closing admin to explain to me why I'm wrong. I have looked for sources that would establish notability and found none. Yilloslime T C  15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to satisfy WP:GNG, and for not being covered in reliable secondary sources. - Biruitorul Talk 17:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since no reliable sources independent of the subject discuss this relationship, which makes it a fail of the notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge any notable information to each country's respective article per the above comments. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 23:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per Drawn Some and general failure to satisfy notability of the particular bilateral relationship. Edison (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another random pairing of countries that doesn't show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As said, this is a random pairing of two countries, shoving the burden of proving notability not on the creators, but on the readers. What's more, that supposed notability was proven not to exist. Dahn (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of expansion. All countries want to expand tourism (it's not notable). No sources indicate these relations are notable. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have notified User:Cool3 of this discussion per WP:CIVIL because he significantly contributed to this article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep These countries have notable bilateral relations as evidenced by their Co-operation Agreement in the Field of Culture, Education, Research and Sports which has been verified by an independent source (the Mission to Estonia from Egypt) here. The first discussion here made that abundantly clear, and in my opinion, should have been a keep. LibStar's subjective opinion that a bilateral treaty is "minor" in insufficient to overcome wikipedia's policy regarding the WP:Notability of subject matter. That policy is as follows:
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
 * "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."

This source meets those criteria. I would urge a thorough reading of the definition of "significant coverage" because that's a key term and is often misused.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that source "independent of the subject"? It's an Estonian gov't website! Yilloslime T C  18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. You're right. My bad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. What on earth is the rush to delete this?  The article is neutral and verifiable, and the last AfD was only 2 months ago.  No valid rationale for deletion has been presented here.  At most, an argument can be made that there is insufficient content for a standalone article and that this should be merged into the appropriate locations.  A merger discussion should be undertaken, if necessary, via the talk page or Proposed mergers.  I will repeat what I said in the previous AfD; this is not the most notable relationship in history, but there are at least two notable recent events (the memorandum of understanding and the honorary consulate) and Tunisia is a major destination for Estonian tourism.  There are enough reliable sources to build an article on that basis; I have no prejudice with regards to a merger, but AfD is not and should not be WP:PM.  Cool3 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the valid rationale is that I did a google news search in 2 languages and found close to nothing. fails WP:N. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should be merged if no independent third party source can be found to verify the notability of the topic. The fact that the source for the treaty is a government source does not make the treaty unimportant. However, notability does need to be established to merit an independent article. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a third source concerning this treaty. Of course, I don't speak Estonian, Arabic or French, the official languages of those countries. I urge those concerned about this article to undertake a search to find an "independent" source.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a search in French and English and found close to nothing that establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are, of course, already two independent reliable sources cited in the article. One, in Estonian, is Eesti Päevaleht, a major Estonian newspaper.  Another is the Baltic News Service, a major news agency of the region (the article is available in English via LexisNexis). Neither of these has any connection with the government of Estonia or Tunisia. Thus, I'm not quite sure what people mean when they say no independent, third-party services. The treaty seems to have generated little press coverage, though if I could speak Estonian I imagine I could find some, but it is, of course, documented in the United Nations treaty series. Cool3 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * there is only a little bit of independent coverage but according to WP:GNG we need significant coverage, that's what these relations lack. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment what's missing is a WP:RS stating that the subject of this article--the very notion of the two countries' relationship--is notable. That's easy for e.g. the U.S. and Canada, or the U.K. and France, or Japan and China, but harder in a case like this. But the main point for me is that there is an agreement on how to handle these: see Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations and WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. JJL (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The policy says that what is needed is a reliable, independent source that provides significant coverage of the relationship between the two countries. That would establish notability. The source doesn't have to point out the notability. Its existence does that. As for the source here, I don't speak Estonian either but it looks like it refers to Tunisia (Tuneesias). If someone could provide a reliable translation and it referred to a bilateral treaty, I would say that it establishes notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wholly unremarkable as a whole, with no third party study to claim the topic is otherwise. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  03:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The cultural agreement seems quite notable.  D r e a m Focus  18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not an independent source, and I'd rather have an independent source actually covering "Estonia–Tunisia relations", as opposed to what a Wikipedian happens to tell me constitutes "Estonia–Tunisia relations" and what happens to "seem" "quite notable" to him. - Biruitorul Talk 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need an independent source for the content of the article, only the subject. That is what the current rules state.  I asked over on the talk page of WP:OR to be certain.   D r e a m Focus  10:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * one cultural agreement alone (and a honorary consulate) is not enough to establish notable relations. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per all the above. Nothing that aspires here to establishing notability of the relationship and no substantial independent coverage. Eusebeus (talk) 18:16, 8 June 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.