Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Turkey 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 delete. bd2412 T 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Iceland–Turkey relations
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. this article is just a list of non resident ambassadors. neither country has ever had resident ambassadors. interactions between Turkey and Iceland have almost been exclusively via EFTA. EFTA-Turkey relations may be warranted but not this bilateral. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, like other bilateral relations articles, in order to describe extent of bilateral relations, such as any embassies or not, treaties or not, etc. Deletion nominator seems more knowledgeable than most people, to know that this pair of countries might inter-relate through EFTA, whatever that is, but there is no reason to deny that info to Wikipedia readers.  In the past there were many articles about embassy buildings which were arguably not notable on their own;  a common solution was to redirect them to bilateral relations articles and cover the embassies there, on basis that bilateral relations are essentially notable on wp:INHERENT grounds.  (Ack, i can anticipate the deletion nominator's reaction to that, which I hope they will consider just not stating, please, but I expect they will.  They disagree, fine.  Well, I disagree with them.)
 * Also, the deletion nominator at other AFDs has implied my comments are lies, or bad faith in various other ways, and has made what amount to personal attacks, while also claiming they are always civil. Whatever.  For what it is worth, I browse "today's" AFDs occasionally and this right now is top of the list there.  Since the deletion nominator was the nominator of another bilateral relations AFD recently, I am not surprised they are the deletion nominator here, but I have not been following their contributions to oppose them.  If I did do that, that would be perfectly okay, I believe, anyhow, because there seems to be a troubling pattern. -- do  ncr  am  02:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the article contains a list of notable ambassadors (5 or 6 of them individually notable apparently as demonstrated by existence of articles on them), which would be a valid list-article on its own. This article is a good place to hold that, instead of having it be separate, plus to cover facts about embassies or lack of them, ambassadors from the other country, etc. Also I wonder about Iceland accepting immigrants from Turkey, that would be a valid kind of topic to cover (I assume a far higher percentage of Iceland is of Turkish descent than vice versa.) -- do  ncr  am  02:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * without even being deletion sorted turns up at another AfD I've nominated in less than 24 hours [he claimed yesterday to find the article via delsorting even though it hadn't been listed] and no surprise votes WP:ITSNOTABLE and includes WP:ADHOM attacks of me. it's bordering on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. as for lies, doncram has asserted all museums are notable, this discussion proves this is a lie. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * bilateral relations are essentially notable is clearly false and another falsehood. community consensus has deleted 100s of these, therefore WP:INHERENT cannot apply. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also I wonder about Iceland accepting immigrants from Turkey' is just original research on your part, you're just speculating with no evidence. I will strongly refute your claim of Iceland having some sort of Turkish migration: LibStar (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship of Iceland
 * Facile assertions about what i claimed, when i didn't make those claims, rather proves the point, yup.
 * What about the recent Turkish Abductions, when a high percentage of Icelanders were actually kidnapped by Turks, we should not forget, right!?! :)  And there does exist organization of turkish expats in Iceland.  Umm, mathematically, if there are 100 or whatever number of Turkish immigrants in Iceland, however small the percent is, it is automatically an order of magnitude more than a similar number of Icelanders (unlikely) in Turkey, given the disparity of populations. -- do  ncr  am  03:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, mathematically, if there are 100 or whatever number of Turkish immigrants in Iceland, however small the percent is, it is automatically an order of magnitude more than a similar number of Icelanders (unlikely) in Turkey, given the disparity of population regardless of the fact there aren't even 100 turkish migrants, this statement is one of the most ludicrous arguments for keep I've ever seen in my 10 years on WP. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * hilarious, is not an organisation it's a social networking site for expats to find each other, how this somehow is a reliable source that makes Iceland–Turkey relations notable is pure WP:SYNTHESIS. clutching at straws in trying to make a non inherently notable topic, notable. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * hilarious the Turkish Abductions are from the 17th century, and Iceland became an independent country in the 1940s. the topic is described well enough in its own article. again using pure WP:SYNTHESIS to try to make this bilateral somehow notable. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Leaving aside the minor warfare above, this is (as the nominator rightly points out), an entirely non-notable instance of bilateral relations which don't really exist to any meaningful extent. The fact that EFTA and other multilateral organisations are a "substitute" (for want of a better word) has a lot to do with that. Wishful speculation about what an article could contain (including "recent" events in the 17th century) don't amount to reasons in favour of keeping an article which doesn't - not to mention shouldn't - include those things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * keep Bilateral relations seem important enough to warrant inherent notability, given that they relate to countries which are probably one of the most notable categories in the wiki. Bilateral relations articles should not be deleted even if there is little infomation, as little infomation is in itself information. The page editors have also added information on the history of ambassadors, something useful and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. These pages also fall into a category of potential. Is there a pressing need to delete this page, when the subject of the article remains and will remain a 'thing" as long as the two countries exist? The AfD nominator needs to do better to explain why exactly this page being in wikipedia is harmful to the project otherwise, we should follow with the idea that bilateral relations pages are almost always inherently notable Egaoblai (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * there is absolutely no inherent notability of bilateral articles. several 100 have been deleted.  WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:NOHARM are not reasons for keeping.  LibStar (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2017 (

There's definitely a strong argument to be made for them being notable, given that countries themselves are among the most notable pages here. Relationships between those countries represent dynamic situations and as such are never a 'case closed' page. This page does not represent a meeting that once happened in 1972, but an ongoing relationship. If there was literally nothing here then you may have an argument that it should be deleted,but clearly there is something here- a list of ambassadors- and we do not delete things that are notable simply because the pages are small. To be clear, countries are highly notable subjects and it follows that the relations between two countries are in most cases notable, clearly in this case where notability has been established by the editors of the page, who have added pertinant information.Egaoblai (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * community WP:CONSENSUS has decided several hundred bilateral articles to be deleted therefore granting no inherent notability. you're just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE when it isn't.  there have also been failed proposals to give bilaterals inherent notability. please accept consensus and stop unilaterally granting inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if we accept that bilateral relations are not inherently notable, both myself and another user have provided a lot of arguments as to why this particular page is: 1. The relationships between two VERY notable subjects are a good indicator of notabiility 2. the relationship is an ongoing process 3. Brevity is not an argument for deletion 4. the ambassadors themselves are notable, which adds weight to the arguments for this pages notability. 5. the information is of historical interest and so is suitable for an encyclopedia. By keeping this page the encyclopedia gains a page that may be of use to researchers on Iceland ambassadors to Turkey in an English language. Your argument so far has been WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE Without many convincing arguments as to why. As the person nominating an article for deletion your task is to explain how the encyclopedia would be better without this page, not just claim "it's not notable" something there clearly isn't a consensus on.Egaoblai (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ambassadors are not inherently notable either. over 100 ambassador articles have beem deleted.  in any case these are all non resident ambassadors.  this still fails WP:GNG. can you show me even 5 sources that discuss these bilateral relations in depth. I bet you can't.  LibStar (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a non-topic. Yilloslime T C  19:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I appreciate when a nominator does their homework and can constructively defend their rationale with, and only with, policy-based statements -- not opinions. As has been mentioned, the bilateral relations between Iceland and Turkey do not exist to a meaningful extent an that is clearly recognizable by the lack of significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable topic. The notable ambassadors are notable for entirely different reasons. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This really isn't a notable topic. -- Begoon 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete Not a notable topic. Are we going to have tens of thousands of these contentless cookiecutter stubs, one for every combination of countries?  Reyk  YO!  08:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming 195 countries in the world, I think that's 18,915 articles, at one per pair - unless I stuffed the maths up. -- Begoon 10:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I got the same: 195x194/2=18915. Reyk  YO!  12:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am too thinking that. Such as Iceland-Nigeria relations.. Capitals00 (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2017 (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.