Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan-Venezuela 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) Erik9 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan-Venezuela relations

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

Listing after a contested PROD. This article makes no assertion of why the subject is notable, either within the scope of world diplomacy and history or even to the two nations involved. Although the article links to both Foreign relations of Venezuela and Foreign relations of Japan, the scant information in the article was never apparently considered for inclusion there first to give it a chance to grow through later edits until such time as it may warrant its own article. The two "references" aren't even cited from the text; they are simply very recent news items that do nothing to improve the article and in fact damage it through WP:NOTNEWS. BlueSquadron Raven  17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability is asserted in the conventional fashion. Definitely a stub in need of expansion.  NOT#NEWS is not applicable, though it does take ~10 seconds of effort to discover this. Wily D  17:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding a 60-year-old news story (still not cited from the text of the article) is hardly grounds for its continued existence, especially when no effort has been made to improve the existing Foreign relations articles. You have still yet to assert notability in any way other than that it should be notable based on its title alone. To further illustrate, a better example of a notable bilateral relations article would be Japan – United States relations, which was infinitely more researched, cited, sourced and fleshed out immediately upon its creation than this could hope to be. -- BlueSquadron Raven  17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. If it was notable in 1942, it was notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it was notable in 1942 - It's Venezuela. Regardless, it doesn't warrant keeping the article without first fleshing out Foreign relations of Venezuela and Foreign relations of Japan until the topic can stand on its own merits. Right now, it most certainly does not. -- BlueSquadron Raven  18:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging with one or both of the two links you've provided seems like the best option IMO.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Been making news for more than sixty years does indicate that it's not a single flurry of news reports like a car crash or something. You're stuck with appeals to WP:IDONTLIKEIT You'll have to dance with the one what brung you.  Wily D  18:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As opposed to WP:ILIKEIT? In any case, all I get out of these "references" is that Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso is notable, Hugo Chavez is notable, and the government of Venezuela ca. 1942 is notable. I do not get why relations between these two countries are notable on the world stage in and of themselves relative to any other random pair of countries, nor the impact of such relations on world history or socioeconomics. There is no significant coverage of the topic of Japan-Venezuela relations in and of itself, only of sporadic incidents. Write that (and I mean write it... not just add out-of-date news articles) and I'll give it another look. -- BlueSquadron Raven  19:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As oppose to it being the usual practice to keep notable, encyclopaedic articles, because this is a project to build an encyclopaedia. Since you're arguing for a highly irregular result, you need to provide a substantial reason.  "Would be the thing to do per longstanding practice and the general consensus of editors" is a strong starting point, and with no opposition beyond IDONTLIKEIT, it should be an open and shut case. Wily D  19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that, as it's been my experience that many new articles stem from earlier established articles when a sub-topic has received enough citations of notability within it, as has been a longstanding practice with the general consensus of editors. Why are you advocating an irregular result, and simply arguing that you don't like it? Japan – United States relations led to a major war, what did Japan-Venezuela relations lead to? -- BlueSquadron Raven  19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If "resulted in a war with 50+ million casualities" is your threshold for "minimum notability for a seperate article", you're farther out of touch with the community than I'd have guessed. While new articles are sometimes spun out of old ones, starting new articles from scratch has certainly been the norm in my experience (I've started ~200 articles, of which 1% where spun out of larger articles).  Your experience might vary, but both methods will produce worthwhile articles - embracing one doesn't require shunning the other. Wily D  21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Not a war. How about anything at all? I mean anything that can justify it having its own article. What did these relations lead to and why is it important historically? Is there even a book out there on this topic that can show that? One book, exhaustively enough researched and cross-referenced, that can make one go "Wow, Japan-Venezuela relations were more important in today's world than I thought!" I'm not asking for 50 million casualties, just one bloody example! Can you provide, or does it fail WP:N after all? -- BlueSquadron Raven  21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per common sense, these two countries are important enough, particularly economically, that there is bound to be enough out there to support an article. A problem is picking out appropriate sources, because obvious searches yield too many results.  There are some in this gnews search.  I added this EL on the precise topic to the article.  There's this book - apparently trading in metals is a major economic relationship.  As this search shows, there is a Japan-Venezuela Economic Committee of the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren), which was chaired by the president of Toyota.  This book has a little about Japanese perceptions of the investment climate in Venezuela as found by that committee.John Z (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Z. There are definitely enough sources out there for a full-scale article and merging would do no good. —Admiral Norton (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as one of the relations that are actually notable. The links John Z found prove it fair enough. Tavix | Talk  23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do these two countries have relations? Yes. Are there reliable sources demonstrating that fact? Yes. The fact that there are multiple sources discussing relations between these two nations makes it a priori notable, regardless of whether or not the sources are currently used in the article.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a welcome case of Country A and Country B having diplomatic and economic relations that meet WP:N and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Fg2 (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY - several good cites now show how foriegn relations have been conducted on the highest level between these two largish countries. Not all "Yolksylvania-Poultria relation"-type articles are notable, but this one has been shown thusly. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, due to JohnZ's work. However, I'd like to know if they currently have exchanged ambassadors. -- llywrch (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly encyclopedic article, no reason to delete it.   D r e a m Focus  12:26, 11 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.