Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finland–Romania 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   keep. Nja 247 08:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Finland–Romania relations

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

No plausible claim of notability can be made here. Yes, Romania was an Axis power and Finland was aligned with the Axis, but not only is that made abundantly clear at Axis powers, Romania during World War II and Military history of Finland during World War II, the two countries' interests were very different during the war and (as far as I can tell) they never fought together or cooperated very closely. And yes, they were both in the Soviet sphere of influence, but one wasn't a Communist country and in any case relations weren't especially close; and yes, they're both in the EU, but we have Member State of the European Union for that. In short: they've brushed up against each other, but hardly at a level covered by reliable sources. Biruitorul Talk 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For me, this passes the Google news search test, and most of these combinations don't.  These are all from within the last five years:
 * | Finnish premier expresses optimism about Romania's EU entry in 2007
 * | Finland's president addresses Roma rights issue during Romania visit
 * | ROMANIA: PM TO PAY OFFICIAL VISIT TO FINLAND
 * | Finnair to launch scheduled service to Bucharest
 * | Finnish defence minister visits navy operation center in Romania (in this case, both nations were providing peacekeeping forces in Bosnia). Some might review these and say that it isn't enough; to me, it's evidence that in Helsinki and Bucharest, there is an interest in building ties between the two nations, and that justifies an article. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Link 1 is about a declaration from the Finnish PM, about to become President of the European Council, about how he hopes Romania is going to join the EU. Not only is that trivial and something we'd never ever note in Vanhanen's biography or an article on the foreign relations of Romania, but what else was he expected to say? Three of the other links are about visits - yes, one would expect European leaders to visit each other, but the visits say nothing about the relationship as such, and out of the context of material dealing in depth with the Finland-Romania relationship, they mean nothing; finally, that Finnair flies to Bucharest is recorded at Finnair destinations, but that also doesn't say anything about "Finland–Romania relations" as such. - Biruitorul Talk 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Mandsford. I don't think all of the links prove relations, but there is definitely something there. Tavix | Talk  14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep International cooperation and official visits make up notability. Thats what international relations are about. DGG (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually those visits are trivia that would never be mentioned anywhere except in this series of nonsense articles; they would never appear in, say, the visitors' biographies. There is no source discussing Finland-Romania relations as such, only components of what Wikipedians think is part of that relationship - a classic WP:SYNTH breach.- Biruitorul Talk 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mansford makes the case that this article meets WP:N, and Biruitorul fails to make an argument that this is a highly exceptional article that merits a highly irregular treatment. No reason not to follow the usual practice. Wily D 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The usual practice is WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage of a topic. We don't have that here. We have a no-content declaration, a business decision by an airline which is recorded elsewhere in any event, and three reports of visits that would never be covered in their subjects' biographies and are meaningless out of context. We have zero sources discussing "Finland–Romania relations" as such. - Biruitorul Talk 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Asserting that we don't have significant coverage here when there is significant coverage here only shows that you're either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Either way, your argument holds no water, since it is based on false premises. Cheers, Wily D  19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we certainly don't have significant coverage of Finland-Romania relations as such. We have, as I said, a no-content declaration, a business decision by an airline which is recorded elsewhere in any event, and three reports of visits that would never be covered in their subjects' biographies and are meaningless out of context. That is coverage, regular news coverage, of trivial events, but it is in no way significant coverage of Finland-Romania relations. Wikipedia rules don't permit editors to just declare bits of trivia as evidence of a notable relationship of some sort; we need in-depth coverage of the relationship in question, as such. - Biruitorul Talk 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the significant coverage has already been presented here, anyone evaluating the situation can see that your argument rests on premises already demonstrated to be flatly false. Beyond that, since there is in depth coverage of their relationship, the usual practice (WP:N) is to keep an article on the subhject.  Of course, usual practice is not a rule, and if you could present a compelling case why this needs to be treated very differently from how we would treat any other class of article, please feel free to do so. Wily D  20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, there isn't any in-depth coverage of their relationship. Sure, we have a no-content declaration, a business decision, and three reports on visits that no source validates the relevance of to the purported subject, but that doesn't make these about the relationship (one that, you may have noticed, has been going on for many decades, and for which a few news bulletins from the last 3 years simply cannot substitute for in-depth coverage), no matter how hard one tries. - Biruitorul Talk 21:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability and Wikipedia is not a directory. Better to mention foreign relations in the article about each country than to have an article about each "relationship" they have with one of the other 203 sovereign countries, since such bilateral article could total 20,000 or so for all pairs of countries. They may have cooperated in some projects. that is a normal part of being a country. We do not need tens of thousands of such articles any more than we need articles about every celebrity's "relationships" with every other celebrity, or "relationships" or contracts between large companies, which also exist and both of which have more news coverage than most of these "relationships." Edison (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia already has almost three million articles, most on subjects far less notable than this (though generally deemed notable enough for inclusion). Even if 20K articles were written on the subject, it'd be a drop in the bucket, like devoting a page or two of Britannica to bilateral relations (in total, for all pairs). Wily D  21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Since there are other crappy, as yet undeleted articles, we should give up on being an encyclopedia and become a big overstuffed drawer full of any stub someone creates about nonnotable things, racing for the lowest common denominator, so that the very worst article is the only one we can delete? When the information could be better accessed by a link to the current list of consulates/ambassadors in an article about "Foreign relations of X?" Puh-leese! Edison (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete:WikiProject International relations has some well thought out advice (see WikiProject International relations) for when bilateral relations between two nations are notable. This article does not even assert to meet any of them. Locke9k (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which version of that page you're referring to. I've been watching an | edit war going on between the participants.  No article is required to "meet" the an individual editor's opinion about how things should be. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment about guideline talks For the record, the proposal Locke refers to is that a relationship between two nations should be considered notable if (a) They have been engaged in a war. (b) They engage in significant trade. (c) They have been/are in an alliance. (d) They share a border.  (e) They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict. and (f) They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.   Other than two obvious keeps-- sharing a common border or fighting a war against each other-- the rest of them come back to WP:N when we debate what's significant, or what would be an alliance.  Personally, I think that keeping an article because the nations have been in an alliance is inclusionism at its worst-- Iceland and Albania don't really have a relationship, but we would give that a pass because they're both in NATO?  Gimme a break.  Then there are other things-- does foreign aid fall under trade?  What if the leaders of the two nations have been working on building ties?  What if trade and investment are increasing?  Ultimately, it all comes back to WP:N and, whether we like to admit it or not, your opinion and my opinion about whether the material found in a search for sources. Mandsford (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete entirely unsourced stub about a non-notable bilateral relationship based on the absence of reliable secondary sources that discuss the relationship when i search for them on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per mansford. Ikip (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - For references you can start by searcing on Google for Kekkonen Romania. Finland has notable bilateral relations with all participant of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1973. + the usual, 2 x resident ambassadors, multiple state visits, etc. P.S. - This is also interensting: The article says that Finland (re)established diplomatic relations on October 14, 1949. Another article on Wikipedia, Soviet occupation of Romania, says Romania was under Soviet military occupation until 1958, so naturally it could not have relations with anyone. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Embassies already are recorded in the lists. Everyone went to CSCE (except Albania); any evidence relations with Romania were particularly notable? Actually, Romania did have diplomatic relations, and a civilian government, while under Soviet occupation. This isn't so unusual: see Syrian occupation of Lebanon, present-day Iraq, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 07:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I had a brief look what might be available in Finnish. Romania sydämessäni : Suomen ja Romanian diplomaattisuhteita 80 vuotta (2000, ISBN 952-91-3012-0) published by Suomi-Romania seura and Romanian friendship group of Finnish Parliament (translation: Romania in my heart: 80 years of diplomatic relations between Finland and Romania) looks quite promising. This Suomi-Romania seura (Finland-Romania Group) was established in 1951, and also publishes their own bulletin (Viesti-Vesti : Suomi-Romania seura ry:n tiedotuslehti, ISSN 0358-3139). – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the ignorant arrogance of claims like "no plausible claim can be made here" amuses me, but Google and five minutes' research heartily disagrees with the nominator. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:53, 6 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.