Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece–Iceland 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Greece–Iceland relations

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

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N.  tempo di valse  [☎]  13:42, 22 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) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non resident ambassadors. no evidence of significant relationship. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Strong keep - They are technically allies through NATO, WWII, European Councils, etc. I'd like to get more reliable sources on the nature of their embassies and level of trade.  This might be rescued. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)  Oh, I've found lots of sources from old articles at GNews:, for example, voting together in 1949 in the UN , US exports to both countries , and this gerat one .  I'm convinced now they meet my own standards. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - that both are NATO members is documented at Members of NATO. That both received some amount of steel from the US at the same time in 1948 says nothing about their own relationship. And while at a prime ministerial meeting, relations were said to be "excellent" (what else could we expect? A war?), it was also noted that "many opportunities for furthering cooperation existed in the economy, in investments and in the tourism sector" -- translation: the current relationship doesn't amount to much. - Biruitorul Talk 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article as fixed up? Bearian (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The "historical context" section tries to make something out of nothing. Allow me to explain. The two were not allies in WWII - Iceland was part of Denmark, it was then occupied by the British, and finally remained neutral after independence in 1944 (see Iceland during World War II) - in no way was it part of the Allies. That Greece and Iceland (together with Portugal, Austria and Libya) voted to abstain on whether to admit Red China to the UN in 1958 (not 1949) says nothing about their relationship - it's entirely possible (indeed likely) they arrived at that vote independently of one another, and it also does not mean they "voted together often" in the UN. And finally, that the US gave steel to both of them says nothing about their relationship: it says something about the US-Iceland relationship and the US-Greece one, but nothing about the Greece-Iceland one.
 * The second part, aside from reading like a news release and not an encyclopedia article, again hypes this up in absurd fashion. As I said above, the fact that even they say that there are "many opportunities for furthering cooperation" means cooperation is not that extensive at present. And where exactly does one derive that Iceland's support on Macedonia is "highly important" to anyone? A single, routine visit does not make for a notable relationship by any means. And by the way, the lack of mutual embassies is rather telling. - Biruitorul Talk 18:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

— All In Order (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Bearian. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- As re-written, the article certainly meets notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep meet notability guidelines. —  Jake   Wartenberg  17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing but unremarkable trade and defense agreements and a no-doubt highly staged "working visit" by a head of government, which fails WP:NOT#NEWS. All In Order (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Relations between two countries are always relevant, even if the people that live in them do not speak English (see WP:BIAS). This one is well documented and clearly notable. "Unremarkable" is scarcely a reason for deletion. I am pleased to find that Greece and Iceland are on good terms - it would have been remarkable to me if they were not. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Whatever is relevant is already covered elsewhere. Bringing up the "don't speak English" argument is a strawman - I and at least another "delete" voter are not native English speakers. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right on "don't speak English" - shouldn't have put in that dig at the other editors. I apologize. But I do sense bias and it bothers me. I think this article has potential, if limited. It does have references and I don't see where else the subject would be well-covered. All of these country-X / country-Y relation articles fall between the two countries. Usually they will document the rather dull and routine exchanges between the two countries with stuffed shirts mouthing platitudes about economic cooperation and cultural exchanges. Blah blah. Still, I see value and no harm in articles that summarize current and past relations between two countries. If the material has good sources, I can see no reason to delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument you make wraps around the notion that we need this type of articles as a rule. I would like to go back in time and make the first people who thought up such articles (whatever the countries involved) rethink - particularly since they "fall between the two countries" (my editing experience tells me that this most often makes them content forks, and unlinkable to). But whatever my principles on the generic issue, articles like this one simply don't make the cut: sure, one can write plenty about how the two countries are members of the same organizations (the point?) or about how one took an unclear stance on an issue which may or may not be the other's business, but that only proves that this articles attract content which we can do without, and which we only have around because somebody decided we need to "fill in" the bilateral relations article. Ironically, if there's anything that important, it will actually have found a place in the system (for instance, the FYROM issue could fit in somewhere in the plethora of articles we have on the various incidents surrounding Greece's "problems" with Macedonia, where it would receive its deserved importance as a footnote or a passing mention); if it isn't, and it's just there as filler, then we don't need it all. Also consider this exercise, which I view as essential: once an article like such as this one satisfies your requirements, and therefore exists, do you picture any other article (other than maybe the corresponding "Foreign relations" ones) ever linking to it? I can only see it as forking eternally somewhere in a dark corner, its only use being that it has lived up to its own tailor-made expectations. Dahn (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The question is not what we need, the question is what we want to have. Every non-confusing way or organizing information is good, if the information is inherently of value from an encyclopedic standpoint. Multiple approaches to similar and overlapping topics are a positive feature of anything that is not paper. The relations between two countries is valuable and productive way of thinking about politics and economics and society, both currently and historically.  Now, suppose that someone thinks it is not a productive or interesting way-- the solution is for that person not to work on it. If we stated interfering with articles we think uninteresting or unimportant, AFD will grow exponentially. (e.g.: I'd love to try to remove as many wrestling articles as possible, because I think no rational person ought to care about the whole general area. I know that's not the consensus, but perhaps I could persistently chip away at the edges.... ).  "Content we could do without" --  the totally opposite way of looking at things from making a comprehensive encyclopedia. We're not making an abridged encyclopedia. If you want one, clone it.   DGG (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The above proposes dividing wikipedia into separate parts, and welcoming content forks. Alas, it's not the first time I've seen DGG supporting this notion. And no, I don't see anybody supporting the argument according to which this article (or others in its series) is "uninteresting", it being "unimportant" is really a misnomer, and the analogy with wrestling flawed (since that would be a discussion about bio notability, where clear, if indeed questionable, standards exists, and were, by definition, the possibility of forking is limited by a person being one, and not two people). The point I for one have made is that the info in said articles is only there to support the articles existing (and therefore amounts to trivia), that there is a marginal possibility most will ever be linked in other articles, and that a system thriving on editors ignoring content fork can only lead to a proliferation of cruft, when editors such as myself are actually trying to provide the reader with structured info (and that structure, is, I do believe, a wikipedia goal, hence this very page). And, if I may: the supposition according to which "delete" votes are on grounds of the article being "uninteresting" strikes me as an attempt to hide the actual fact that the main (only?) reason behind the "keep" votes, overriding all stylistic or structural issues, is that the "keep" voters find the article "interesting" (or "not-uninteresting"). Dahn (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any fork issue here - think that is a continuation of another discussion. There are two obvious links to any article like this: Foreign relations of Country X and Foreign relations of Country Y, both of which would point to it for further detail. And a reader looking for information who searched on the two country names looking for information on their relations would likely find it. There are a lot of Greeks in Nigeria Iceland who may be looking for this information. Yes, an article like this could be a focus for the kind of POV edit wars everyone hates. The first search results I found for Articles for deletion/Canada–Haiti relations were highly opinionated - I can see that article evolving into yet another battleground. But that is a problem we have to find ways to deal with. We can't exclude articles because we find them trivial or boring, or suspect may be controversial. I prefer to fall back on the well-tried notability guidelines: multiple independent sources = keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For "I don't see any fork issue here", see my "filler" comment. For "two obvious links" - yes, I've included them in my comment; got more? The crystal balling about Greeks being in Iceland and needing the info (about WWII? about FYROM?) is pretty much out there, and begs a comparison with people needing a phone number and going on wikipedia to find it. I don't find it convincing at all. About the POV war: I'm not sure if that's in answer to something I said, because I don't recall voicing such concerns (though, yes, I believe AfD should also function against POV forks that only function as edit-war baits, I can't see how that applies in this particular case). Btw, the very "trial" by which these articles acquire "many (?) independent sources" is flawed: once the article's relevancy is doubted, an editor who objects sets out to find x sources that mention X country and Y country together, and once this is over claims to have provided a summary of relations. Let's start from the reasonable assumption that something has by now been written about the relationship between any two states, at random (and, incidentally, in this article the sources don't even say anything about the relationship between the two countries, just about a subject involving them and some other tens of countries together, and at least two sources, I note, have been quoted improperly and for no apparent reason). Quoting such sources would establish very little, if anything, about the actual relationship, because it would be based not on the summary of a studied relationship, but on bits of info used to fill a vacuum. It's like writing on a dare, not like recording subjects validated by analytical sources. I would imagine that comparing such subjects, where the main agent of selection is a wikipedia editor (and thus by definition speculative, if not simply WP:SYNTH), to bilateral relationship which are by now the main topics of specialty books is an absolute exaggeration - fine, keep the latter category if we have to, but the former simply needs to go. Dahn (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I confess to serial violations of "filling in". I find an article that seems incomplete or biased, check around, add some more content. I think that is largely the way Wikipedia grows. As long as there are reliable independent sources, well, storage is cheap. I started an article on Baeocrara once - don't know why. It is very small, but maybe of interest to a few people. A couple of editors have contributed. It gets about 3 page views a day. Seems like a suitable topic. Maybe Greece–Iceland relations will get more hits. Time to get some sleep. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point. I have nothing against most articles on "obscure" topics that get "few hits", and (I'm repeating myself) I don't object this article because it's obscure, but because it "validates" itself with trivia. I have nothing against writing, say, an article on Greek/Icelandic poets that are not known to the general public (even the Greek/Icelandic public), as long as they fit with general guidelines by being mentioned by their peers. As for Baeocrara, I have contributed similar articles myself, though not in the same field. The issue here is not about the supposed obscurity of the topic, but about the validity of separate coverage. In this context, it also involves the usage of sources, most of which we wouldn't normally use at all (because nobody would consider the events they describe notable in themselves), and which casually mention two subjects. This method of validating a separate article, I dare say, abuses what the sources say (it's not a relationship they talk about), what an article is supposed to cover (I approve of Edison's comment above, to which I may add WP:SYNTH, and perhaps WP:COATRACK) and what the relationship between articles is supposed to be (WP:CFORK, WP:BTW). Dahn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are reasonable people who will disagree if a type of article should be on Wikipedia, and there is an ongoing discussion about standards specific to these types, but according to the general notability standards, I think this still fits. Ultmately, I use the "student standard" -- if it is probable that some high school or college student would find this article useful as a starting point for research, then keep it in.  Hmmm.... that's a good as an standard as I've seen. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To focus solely on the new point you add: what the student will find in most such juxtapositions (this one included) that he wouldn't find elsewhere is solely what a wikipedia editor was able to collect in several minutes, or at most an hour, using a search engine and typing the names of the two countries. This article says: "Look, a text can be written by synthesizing random tidbits that popped up in said search. One can transform the actual arguments about how this is a poor excuse for article writing into one saying that said operation can't be performed, and express satisfaction when it was performed." I'm sure that, in the unlikely event a student has the unfortunate idea that he or she can write a paper using trivia, he or she can perform the same exercise with a google search. Another soft spot of the "student standard" is that we are always debating these articles a posteriori. They don't pop up because someone needs them, and the need is always hypothetical and sometimes clearly bogus; they pop up simply because someone has said "why not?", and if they weren't already around I'd wager nobody would miss them (students included). Dahn (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is straying far from whether this particular article should be kept, but anyway ... It is probably true that a lot of articles do start with an editor taking an interest in a subject, doing a quick search, and within an hour or less making an article that just reproduces obvious information from Google. But if they are obsessive-compulsive as I am and I suspect quite a lot of other editors are, they will add internal links, think about the new aspects of the subject those links suggest, search for more information, add to the article, restructure and expand. Then other editors with different knowledge and ways of thinking will come across the article, revise and add to it. In the end, with luck, there is a good comprehensive and well-organized article that gives the student what they need to know without spending hours or days of research. There is no new knowledge in the article, of course. There should not be. But there is real value. I would not spend time as an editor if I did not believe that. (That last statement is not really true. I enjoy exploring subjects and recording my findings, and am not too concerned about how wide the audience is.)


 * On this article, and all other AfD articles for that matter, I prefer the very simple test that it should be more than a stub and should present relevant information about the subject with reliable sources. It does not have to be a great article and does not have to be an exhaustive study. If there is general interest in the subject it will expand and improve. If not, it will do no harm. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just about any such juxtaposition of common terms will result in "more than a stub", but I still fail to see how that implies the article should exist. For instance, I could write a piece of FA depth and proportions (which an article such as the one we're discussing has no chance in hell of becoming) about Adolf Hitler and Romania - both terms are valid, the info resulting from the juxtaposition would be sufficiently covered by sources etc. It would not be validated as an article because it would be guided by my informative priorities (my synthesis), and not by an encyclopedic structure, because the existing info is already covered or should be covered elsewhere. The fact that I could write about a topic at length does not mean everything I could write about is a proper or necessary article, especially since wikipedia strives for coherent articles that do not contradict each other, and I don't see how this sort of proliferation could help anyone maintain that coherence without wasting days just trying to figure out how thousands of articles relate to each other.
 * Furthermore, if the relevant info already exists, then we are talking about content forks, which only serve to hinder more logically structured info; the measure of difference here is trivia (i.e.: stuff that we simply wouldn't have and wouldn't need were it not for the arbitrary juxtapositions: one wouldn't even refer to all the visits a state leader has undertook in a bio article on that state leader, but we are supposed to view the more obscure and inconsequential of those visits as relevant when they "validate" juxtapositions of countries which have no form of relationship above that "tidbit" level). Dahn (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that articles should not be created that simply duplicate information recorded elsewhere, and am not arguing for creating trivial articles - only ones where there is significant content. But Country X-Y relations articles may serve as the opposite of forks (assuming these is relevant information about country X-Y relations.) That is, the article on "Country X foreign relations" can have an entry * Country Y: See Country X-Y relations, and the article on "Country X foreign relations" can have a similar entry. The content is held in one place only, rather than duplicating it in the articles on Country X and Country Y foreign relations or, worse, not duplicated it but forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And what I'm saying is that, aside from trivia, articles such as the one we're discussing are equivalent to the sentence "X and Y have some sort of relations". There's hardly a need to summarize the rest of the info elsewhere, since it never comes up otherwise in an encyclopedia, and there's hardly a need to have a separate article on a sentence. What's more: creating an "article" on the "title-see also" structure is an MOS nightmare; the proper way to do that would be to have at least a summary paragraph - it's telling that an article such as this one will be its own summary... Now, as much as I dislike the idea of "bilateral relations" articles in general, I can be persuaded that some of the articles could survive independently, but the bar would have to be set much higher than "Greece-Iceland" (fine with "Canada-US", "China-US", even "Bulgaria-Serbia", "India-Nepal"). If anyone will ever need detailed info on the others (which I sincerely doubt), all of what is notable can easily be bundled into a sentence or two, and then kept in the existing articles.
 * On the issue of duplication: some info will be duplicated no matter what, and, technically, once you reduce it to a "see also", it's still duplicated (an exact duplicate, in fact). In any case, since the rule of thumb is to summarize the articles linked as "see alsos", we would still be duplicating the content for those "more notable" of bilateral relations articles, and we would still have to deal with monotony somehow. Nothing lost, nothing gained on that field. Moreover, proper writing will always leave us with a degree of monotony to deal with: articles on similar topics will have to describe and/or summarize a situation that resurfaces. For example, if I write (as i did) articles about Romanian people who played a part in WWI, and if I want to texts to make any sense to the average reader, I have to mention in each article that Romania was an Entente country, that the Germans occupied southern Romania etc. etc. Finding different but complementary ways of saying the same thing is something an editor has to live with. Dahn (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as no reliable sources establish that this relationship is a notable one, and it is unlikely to ever be such. I am amused at the puff used to try to asset the relationship as notable, however. They were both among the 44 UN members who voted against China's entrance in 1959? The United States provided steel subsidies to greece -- and separately provided steel subsidies to iceland after WWII -- and this trivia establishes a notable bilateral relationship between Iceland and Greece (that's so embarressing it should be excised from the article immediately). Both are members of the OECD? Etc... Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - By both being NATO members itself means there's heavy government documentation on the relations between the two. Military base personnel in each others countries alone garner government and NATO sources.--Oakshade (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I ask for evidence of this documentation, and why Members of NATO couldn't simply cover this territory? - Biruitorul Talk 23:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To assume that NATO in its 50-plus history generated absolutely no documentation on its members and how they relate to each other operationally and diplomatically is willful ignorance and requesting such documentation in an AfD is a case of Wikilawyering.--Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You made the claim; you supply the evidence. Sources abound showing US-German cooperation in the NATO context; US-French cooperation (or lack thereof); US-UK; US-Italy; France-Germany; UK-France, etc. - in other words, the obvious cases. Just because you say there's cooperation between two small countries on opposite fringes of NATO territory, one of which does not even have an army, does not make it so. You haven't shown the documentation - indeed, you probably cannot show it - so your argument falls flat. - Biruitorul Talk 00:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliably sourced evidence of a significant relationship has been established - the article seems to be bound together by synthesis - I don't see how the fact that they both received U.S. steel or that they have both held the same position during votes in the UN is relevant to their relations - they also both have the letter c in their name and are both majority Christian, neither fact has anything to do with their relations. The rest of the article is a news report of a single meeting, not enough to support an article on the general topic. I think it has been established throughout various discussions including numerous AfD's that creating these articles on mass with no consideration to the importance of the relationship is not supported by consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional sources - Searching the Greek language sources, I was able to find some very in-depth reliable sources on Greece-Iceland relations. . So far we've been expecting English language sources on a topic about two non-English speaking nations and not desiring to cover it because English language sources haven't heavily covered the topic, an example of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so the Greek President (a figurehead, by the way) made a visit to Iceland. Can you prove that the information is relevant, not just that it exists? You're proposing to prioritize trivia here - trivia that would never even make it into the subject's biography. - Biruitorul Talk 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The relations are the in-depth subject of reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. If you don't feel that's significant, that's fine, but the standards of this encyclopedia set forth by consensus don't agree. --Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, what you've got there are three articles, two of which are releases by the state-subsidized Athens News Agency, which seems to cover all events related to state business (and, in any way, does not have the level of independence we set for establishing notability). The other is a passing mention in a newspaper article which, I suppose, does not in any way comment on significance in its five paragraphs, but merely records that it happened (which no one doubts); the newspaper gives coverage to all sorts of events, many of which do not deserve mention on wikipedia, let alone a separate article. And clearly, the material in both sources is not, as was claimed, "very in-depth". This is in addition to Biruitorul's objections, which still stand, despite Oakshade's exercise in "I can't hear you". Dahn (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, using google translate, it appears that the only outside source cited here, the Naftemporiki article, centers on a trade agreement which eliminated the double taxation of imports and exports, signed during a courtesy visit. More than half of it cites the Greek President, who I don't think has any say in executive matters, expressing hope for more cooperation in the economic sphere. Trivial, anyone? Dahn (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial? "Trivial" has long been defined in WP:NOTABILITY as "passing mention" or "directory listing". Multi-paragraphed articles directly on Greece-Iceland relations is not in any manner a "passing mention" or "directory listing."  Not counting Athens News Agency articles because it's not independent of the nation of Greece is pure Wikilawyering.  Biruitorul's weak argument (if you can even call it that) of ignoring articles directly about Greece-Iceland relations demonstrating the notability of Greece-Iceland relations is amusing at best and while the objection might "stand", it's wasn't even worth countering. --Oakshade (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For one, let's note how you assume the notability of information presented in an article you haven't apparently read. I'm not counting ANA articles because they're not neutral, and because they discuss the activities of the cabinet to a level we don't ever touch here - which also makes it trivial under any definition of the ones tested here. And, yes, all three sources are indeed passing mentions - should we now start having articles on everything that was covered by one newspaper article? Also, state visits and other news items are not significant in themselves, and are only taken as proof as notability in absurd articles such as the one we're discussing; elsewhere, including in the bio articles on the visitors, and they would be automatically considered trivia if all they say is stuff like "X has visited country Z for three days". One can clearly see from both my points and Biruitorul's that there are at least three WP:GNGs that clash with your "sources", as much and as abusively as GNG has been invoked by the "keep" camp. Reading GNG together with WP:PSTS and then noting the words "national agency" as associated with ANA should also make clear why the accusation of "wikilawyering" is bogus. Dahn (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just repeating the same invented "trival" argument. If you think multi-paragraphed articles on a topic are considered trivial by WP:NOTABILITY's standards, you are free to advocate this on the WP:NOTABLITY's talk page.  Otherwise you're just passionately fighting a losing battle and this looks like consensus on against deleting this article based on the relationship of these nations.  It's not even worth writing long counter arguments to weak ones. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, now you're just being rude. As for your interpretation of what constitutes trivial and what doesn't, I'd be very interested to see what your claim of things having "long been defined" and by whom relies on. For now, let's have a look over these quotes from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" (with an additional mention that a one-sentence mention is trivial, whereas a 300-page book isn't); "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." (I leave it to you to [re-]read the long application of that principle in note 2, but let me highlight this phrase: "Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large"); "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): [...] press releases." Lastly, let's not disregard this: "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." So, if there's something you want to have reconsidered about these issues, it is you who may want to consider agitating on the WP:N talk page.
 * And, as has been said many times by now without seemingly attracting your interest: citing random sources mentioning various events not inherently notable (state visits) to evidence and support a questionable and questioned phenomenon (relations) is WP:SYNTH. Dahn (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dahn, this long speech is actually confirming this article passes WP:NOTABILITY. The articles covering Greece-Iceland relations are not "one sentence mentions" but multi-paragraphed articles.  You can't get around that.  And if you don't think coverage on this topic and other arguments by other "keep" voters are not indications that article is "presumed" notable by WP:N standards, that's your opinion but WP:NOTABILITY and, in this case, consensus disagrees with you. I'm done argueing against someone who's making a feeble attempt at Wikilawyering and practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  Go ahead and have the last word.  I'm done. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever, Oakshade. If your objection is that my replies are long, feel free not to read them. As I have shown with citations and you were unwilling or unable to dispute, WP:N does not in fact agree with you. I didn't even take the "consensus exists" claim into consideration, since it's evidently irrational, and made spurious by the many, many AfDs, this one included, as well as by a "centralized discussion". Screaming otherwise won't make my arguments an "opinion" and yours "truth", and the irony of you invoking IDIDNTHEARTHAT after complaining that my posts are too long is glaring. Dahn (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. The article has been blown up with ridiculous little things such as voting the same way in the UN or both being NATO members. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Pending Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banj e  b oi   23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul Talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out amore appropriate solution.  -- Banj e  b oi   01:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? Where are the sources satisfying WP:GNG? - Biruitorul Talk 01:37, 30 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.