Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea 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; rescued. - Altenmann >t 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

DRV concluded that the result was actually "no consensus", so striking false claim above. (Personally, from the votes showing 9 deletes to only 4 keeps and the state of the article it's probably more accurately a "Delete" consensus, but since a "Keep" voter jumped on this and closed it without following proper procedure I guess we're stuck with no consensus for now.) DreamGuy (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

France – Papua New Guinea relations

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

Since no reliable independent sources discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth at all. One can find mutual french and PNG presence at fishing conferences or on a UN committee here and there but A. Such things are multilateral. B. Even when these multilateral events have been covered (usually in primary sources but whatever) there is nothing beyond the trivia of "Ministers x and y were present." Bali ultimate (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the only things I could find were this and a joint press briefing of the 2 leaders that contains no mention of bilateral relations despite both leaders being there. other than that relations and coverage are on the rugby league field where both participated in the 2008 Rugby League World Cup. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice. "relations" articles as a genre not acceptable, due to inherent violation of synth. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your point of view runs against consensus. Articles on bilateral relations are not inherently unacceptable. You make believe they are, but Wikipedia practice and consensus disagree with you. That makes your vote on this particular article off-topic. Aridd (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable secondary sources adress this article in the depth required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability. Wikipedeia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pernom. Eusebeus (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A cursory Google search turns up the following: "1768 - French explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville lands at the islands during his circumnavigation of the world. Gives name to an island just to the east of New Guinea." I wonder what else I'll find if I actually look hard.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the above point does not relate to bilateral relations as PNG did not become a country until 1975 and was never a French colony. that info should be in History of Papua New Guinea. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is plenty of information here regarding political, economic, cultural and even military ties between these two far-flung countries. I'll be updating the page in the hope that it won't be deleted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Loads of information? Like this: France still does not have much of a presence, exporting only EUR 2M in 2003. LibStar (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. A claim that a french explorer landed on an island "just to the east of New Guinea" 200 years before Papua New Guinea became an independent nation state as bolstering a claim for notability of a bilateral relationship. That's a rather epic fail in basic understanding of what bilateral means, even considering it's from an ARS member.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, just to let everyone here know, France has what's known as a "sui generis collectivity" in New Caledonia which isn't that far away from PNG. A plan for bilateral cooperation between the Armed Forces of New Caledonia and PNG’s defense forces was approved in November 2004. Sounds like bilateral relations to me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Cdgosimmons makes the paucity of relations painfully evident. Crowing about Alliance Francaise is simply scraping the bottom of the barrel.  Utterly non-notable due to lack of significant in-depth coverage of thee topic of this article in independent reliable resources.  Any relief aid can be mentioned in Foreign relations of Papua New Guinea and Alliance Francaise locations can be included in Alliance Francaise or even in the culture section of the PNG article if it is truly important. Crystal Ball military agreements aren't important. Drawn Some (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your failure to find in-depth coverage indicates non-notability? Do you speak French by any chance? Anyone speak French around here?!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I speak French and could not find anything. almost all coverage is multilateral context or rugby league LibStar (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I actually see quite a few references to Papua New Guinea's relationship with New Caledonia (still within the French Republic). Did I mention before that I added a source saying that they have a bilateral military alliance? I think that should suffice to establish notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * not true, where in the above search? are you mixing up "NOUVELLE GUINEE" with Nouvelle Caledonie? LibStar (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the excellent additions and references added. The article is no longer the stub it began as. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What nonesense. Still all primary sources. Still zero reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject -- this supposed bilateral relationship -- at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still confused about what a primary source is. A government owned media outlet is still a secondary source when reporting about a trade agreement. The actual text of the agreement is the primary source. Even so, primary sources are not banned. They just must be used with caution so that no original research is done in explaining that text in the primary source by a Wikipedia editor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * primary sources are not banned but any case for notability is greatly strengthened by independent third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * THe three primary sources are all run by the french foreign ministry, so i'm not sure what "government-owned media outlet" he's taking about. There is none.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete You need secondary sources to write an article, and there aren't any on this topic.Yilloslime T C  03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator of this article, User:Aridd, was never notified by User:Bali ultimate of this Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You don't need secondary sources unless someone has honest doubt about the primary source being valid. Does anyone believe that either government is lying when it states France has given aid to help Papua New Guinea, they participate in joint military exercises, or any of the other information?   D r e a m Focus  18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you do need secondary sources. I think you are confusing notability with verifiability, a common mistake. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines, which are the criteria for determining whether a topic deserves a stand-alone article. They say, in part that: "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.… "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.  Yilloslime T C  19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These are secondary sources, the primary source is the text of the treaty. The secondary source is the government website discussing the treaty. If you are worried about government websites not showing notability, we use the census designation to determine that townships are notable. For almanac entries, they just have to exist. We pipe in all federal judges, and elected representatives from their official congressional biographies. We dont require a biography in the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I should have just quoted all of WP:N to begin with:
 * 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.


 * "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.
 * We can argue about whether a gov't website is a primary or secondary source, and I'll grant that it's reliable, but it's unquestionably not an independent source. Yilloslime T C  22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that the France website is independent of Papua New Guinea. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you say that the French gov't website is an independent source of information on France-PNG relations? That's the real question here. Yilloslime T C  04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yilloslime. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - as even those defending this admit, secondary sources covering "France – Papua New Guinea relations" are non-existent. Well, there's no good reason to ignore WP:GNG here; thus, let's delete. - Biruitorul Talk 03:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd like to thank those who've helped expand it, and I'd like to thank Cdogsimmons for letting me know this was up for deletion. I take this opportunity to remind people who nominate articles for deletion that it's a simple, easy and basic courtesy to inform the initial author of the article. As for this article: I disagree that government websites are not sufficient to establish notability. They provide neutral facts crucial to determining the relationship between the two countries. To imply that the French or PNG government is somehow making statistics up, that their reliability is questionable, seems to me quite ludicrous. Lastly, France and PNG are fairly close neighbours, via New Caledonia. New Caledonia and PNG are both in Melanesia, and Melanesian countries, as noted in the article, have expressed their views on New Caledonia's future in their region. There seems to be a trend among some editors who believe that articles on relations between a major power and a "small" country they've never heard of should automatically be deleted. (I've seen editors admit it twice before, in regards to Kiribati and Nauru: they use their own ignorance of these countries to justify calls for deletion.) I hope this isn't the case here. Aridd (talk) 08:08, 4 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.