Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Ukraine 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. Good arguments advanced by both sides, but it's fairly obvious at this point that there is not going to be any consensus at this time. Further discussion should be taken to the article's talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Iceland–Ukraine relations

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

another laughable random combination. non resident ambassadors. the only thing in common is that their respective ambassadors are both based in Helsinki which will make it easy for meetings. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - thoroughly random pairing with no sources or expansion potential. - Biruitorul Talk 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information like where embassies are. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentWhat is disruptive is any effort to halt a properly formed AFD before its time period has concluded. The fact that a very few editors are debating somewhere as to whether there should be a notability guideline does not and has not prevented AFDs on the subjects of the proposed guideline from deleting the articles. The vast majority of such guidelines fail to gain consensus, anyway, such as efforts I have seen for schools, shopping malls, news stories and religious congregations. It is better to let the AFDs proceed,and take the common outcomes as an index of the community's standard.Edison (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing really to talk about. Previously stated, they are both just random combination. Renaissancee (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable random intersection of two countries.  Gigs (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending the result of the discussion linked to above.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment And what if the discussion has no result? This minor stub can easily be recreated if, by some unlikely miracle, the consensus is to allow every random intersection that has embassies. Gigs (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the discussion will have some result. if there is no agreement we shall have to go back nad do these one at a time, and should put these on hold till then. What's not deleted now can still be deleted next month. DGG (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but would it be possible to assess notability even without a guideline? We've been doing it for a while, after all. - Biruitorul Talk 07:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Biruitorul. can DGG find any reliable source showing notable relations between Iceland and Ukraine? currently quite a few of these laughable combinations are being deleted at the moment. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I see several people telling us to wait. What I don't see is anybody pointing to anything that shows that Iceland and Ukraine have a notable relationship.  I don't buy the argument that "someone, but not me, might find something".  Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 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. 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) 20:28, 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) 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the merits The combination isn't quite as "laughable" as suggested by the nominator; there does appear to be a dialogue, nothing major, but perhaps enough for an article. Iceland and Ukraine have one thing in common-- they're both going bankrupt and in need of an IMF bailout, which would tend to put diplomatic ties on the back burner.  A lot of duplicates in Google news, but here's what we have:
 * | 2008 agreement on avoiding double taxation
 * | 2006 agreement to simplify visas;
 * | 2005 meeting of the foreign ministers on improving ties
 * | 2004 Prime Minister Oddsson and President Kuchma meeting  I don't believe in waiting for the sake of waiting, although if someone wants to rescue the article, I'd ask folks to revisit it. Mandsford (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first three are from a somewhat questionable news source, but even if reliable, all four are trivial news events that are simply not worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. There is simply no plausible claim for a double taxation avoidance agreement and a simplified visa scheme to qualify, in isolation, as anything more than trivia. Likewise with the two meetings, the importance of which is nowhere confirmed by a separate source actually discussing "Iceland–Ukraine relations", as opposed to news stories we may think constitute evidence of notability in this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 22:02, 1 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.