Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong–Nicaragua 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. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  02:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong–Nicaragua relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

this article is mainly about a trade dispute between a private Hong Kong company and Nicaragua. This dispute is adequately covered in Nicaragua Canal. No evidence of actual aspects making bilateral relations like several agreements, multiple leader visits or significant migration. Article creator attempted to pad out relations by mentioning they were both members of IOC and FIFA with zero evidence of actual interactions. Secondly sport is not an indicator of Bilateral relations. Trade is absolute minuscule. Total trade between the 2 represents 0.007% of two way trade for Hong Kong. In other words trade is barely noticeable. LibStar (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate doing this, but I really can't decide. I'll have to go neutral for now, and I'm open to being persuaded in either direction. I don't like it when we have to delete articles that clearly took some amount of effort to make. Even though the trade dispute is not something in which the Hong Kong municipal government itself has taken part, it does seem to be of significance between the two political entities (referring to Hong Kong as a "nation" wouldn't feel right, seeing as it barely has any real sovereignty to begin with). Nevertheless, from what I can tell, it's pretty much the only major link between them. I don't know where to merge this information, whether the current page should be redirected somewhere - and if so, where? Should it remain as a disambiguation page? Are the relations between Hong Kong and Nicaragua significant enough to merit their own little article? It's a difficult decision. I'll wait for more input before changing my current stance. Kurtis (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Importance of trade should not be counted in percentage, but how the type of the product affect the economies, economically, socially, and culturally, usually more than the direct GDP generated. In addition, according to the WikiProject International relations, "All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should roughly have met any of these criteria in order to meet notability for the bilateral relational articles. (1)They have been engaged in a war. (2)They engage in significant trade. (3)They have been/are in an alliance. (4)They share a border. (5)They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict. (6)They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute." While only 1 criterion is needed to be met, apparently Hong Kong-Nicaragua case has met more than one of the criteria, including but not limited to (2) and (6), and thus should be kept. In addition, most international trade and investment are, if not among those few several planned economies, directed by private companies, so that there is hardly to see a point to challenge the article in this way. Moreover, Sports and International Relations are highly related, and has been a hot topic to study nowadays in International studies.Xxjkingdom (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WikiProject International relations is only a suggested standard and has never been adopted. secondly even if it were accepted, the Hong Kong–Nicaragua relations would fail dismally on all 6 counts. lastly, sporting relations even if were to be valid, there is zero evidence of sporting interaction between Hong Kong and Nicaragua, citing common membership does not prove actual interaction. I feel you need to edit a wider variety of articles to understand notability in WP. You're really clutching at straws to establish notable relations when there isn't . LibStar (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WikiProject International relations is an established standard, and this page fully fulfills the standard. As for the notability, extended primary and secondary coverage provided in the page shows the page fully meets the standard.Xxjkingdom (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If you accept this is standard it fully fails all 6 aspects. How can it fully meet it when they don't share a border nor have ever been a war with each other. You're now inventing things and clutching at straws. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note "All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should roughly have met any of these criteria in order to meet notability for the bilateral relational articles." Therefore this article has met the criterion with Hong Kong's investment highly controversial in Nicaragua, as well highly influential in Nicaragua.Xxjkingdom (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you're said "fully fulfils " this standard not partially fills. The investment dispute is a private company. Being "highly controversial " is not the same as notable.  So you admit the whole notable hinges on this dispute which is in fact adequately covered in another article.  What next? A soccer match or a copied health advisories? LibStar (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "You can pay either credit card or cash to fully fulfill the requirement to walk out this restaurant." In this case, you do not have to pay both cash and credit card, but only one of it. Notable is because of the coverage of reliable sources, don't set up straw man, please. No other single article could cover the relations between Hong Kong and Nicaragua, which starts from long before, and connected economically, socially, and culturally. Thank you!Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What a useless analogy. Most places that accept credit card around the world accept mixed card and cash payment. The only content of value is the canal dispute which is adequately covered in Nicaragua Canal. If you bothered to look at other bilateral articles you will see none contain health advisories. By adding these in just demonstrates true straw clutching to desperately find anything with Nicaragua and Hong Kong in the same page to somehow establish notability. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment adding routine health advisories (issued by all major governments to its travellers to developing countries) such as based on a worldwide medical email alert system, this and this establishes nothing about actual bilateral interactions. it's clutching at straws for actual and real bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all nations would have an effective health information exchange mechanism between the two. In addition, the relations in trade and culture could not be neglected as a hard proof of the notability of Hong Kong-Nicaragua relations.Xxjkingdom (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * these health advisories do not prove bilateral relations. They are standard health advisories based on the world health organisation or Center for Disease Control and identical advice is replicated by multiple national governments. It's like in a desperate attempt to find sources you've included these health advisories. It's laughable LibStar (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * all the hk travel advisories do is reproduce info published by some other party. In no way does this establish any actual interaction between Hong Kong and the Nicaraguan government. All these advisories is someone sitting in an office in Hong Kong reposting info posted or emailed from somewhere and doing this in 2 mins. If there was an actual interaction, it would be a Hong Kong health official visiting Nicaragua to investigate these diseases. This obviously never happened. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply closely monitoring on the other's condition shows connection between the two. Monitoring costs and thus is selective. With help of modern technology, site visit is not necessary and could be replaced by internet or tele-conversation.Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Monitoring is not close connection. That is pure synthesis and gross exaggeration on your part. You're basically looking for any vague mention of Nicaragua in a desperate attempt to prove notability. It is clearly not a close connection based on health alerts and you're fooling no one LibStar (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Hut 8.5  21:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fulfills GNG from sources showing. Pages like this are invariably subpages of large and complex "FOREIGN RELATIONS OF" pages; analyzed in isolation they might seem trivial or mundane, but they are generally integral parts of a larger and more complex whole. Besides isn't exactly a Maldives Islands and Falklands Relations page, both are significant countries and the content is not null... Carrite (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong is not a country. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * discounting the barrel scrape sources like health advisories, the sources of substance refer to a dispute between a private company and Nicaragua and is adequately covered in Nicaragua Canal. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nicaragua Canal is just a piece of the picture. No other single article could cover the relations between Hong Kong and Nicaragua, which starts from long before, and connected economically, socially, and culturally, as well-presented in the article. As retained by the Hong Kong Basic Law, Hong Kong is empowered to arrange its relations with other nations in a broad range of appropriate fields.Xxjkingdom (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:44, 27 July 2016 (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.