Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Norway 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. Secret account 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand – Norway relations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

neither country has a resident embassy, almost all coverage is mulitlateral or of sporting contests. hard to justify given the small populations of both countries on opposite sides of the world. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - While the concept theoretically qualifies for an article, in practice this article lacks references (read: content entirely) and is an OR target (as it appears they don't have any official foreign relations). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says that they've had official relations for over a century since 1905.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of sources discussing the topic, per WP:GNG. We've been redirecting these to "Foreign relations of ..." either of the parties, so that's a fall-back option. - Biruitorul Talk 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete Comment i believe the issue of nationx/nationy relations has been discussed on WP, with a guideline to NOT create articles unless there are substantial relations. otherwise, we end up with thousands of useless stub articles, placeholders for future information. having said that, it appears that people have provided some indication of notability here, esp. their mutual interest in whaling issues, which i should have thought of. it probably does justify an article now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless there is more than can be put in the articles called "Foreign relations of Norway" or "Foreign relations of New Zealand", a separate article is not merited.  The article's author would not have been aware of the Groubani articles controversy that existed in the first few months of 2009, but the consensus was that "Nation X and Nation Y" relations are not automatically entitled to their own page. Mandsford (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Mandsford. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. These two countries do share some common interests, being, for example amongst the first handful of countries to make territorial claims in Antarctica, and both having had major whaling industries, but I can only find discussions of any ensuing relationships in a multilateral context. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NZ's government admits that official relations are modest, but they exist. There is also independent 3rd party coverage of the visits of heads of state, and the dispute over whaling. They also have recent bilateral agreements on air services and a working holiday scheme.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There have been several official visits, the whaling issue is a prominent dispute. Plenty of third party sources if people actually spend time the time to look for them. (see the talk page for a few I found in about five minutes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdogsimmons (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I've considered the additions and the articles on the talk page, I don't believe together they indicate significant relations: one off state visits (these 2 countries rarely have state visits), the fact that NZ acted with 11 other countries, tangential link of an Asian Pacific religious conference that was based on a conversation with the Norwegian PM. this article has nothing to do with NZ. it is about the Norwegian Church in Sydney, Australia. this link is for the Norwegian embassy in Australia whilst it has responsiblity for NZ the site is primarily about Aust-Norway relations. this article is not really about actual relations between Norway and NZ. this article relates to the famous Tampa affair in Australia which was a huge diplomatic incident between the governments of Norway and Australia. NZ offered to take asylum seekers on behalf of Australia but there was no actual dialogue between Norway and NZ, it is pure WP:SYNTH to suggest this incident somehow adds to Norway-NZ relations.LibStar (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment NZ's foreign ministry website provides that "New Zealand supported Norway in its election to the UN Security Council in November 2000. Both New Zealand and Norway are parties to the Antarctic Treaty and cooperate in scientific research on that continent. The two countries concluded an Antarctic Cooperation Statement in December 1997. Human rights, international security, disarmament, Antarctic issues, oceans issues, and climate change are all areas where engagement with Norway has proved particularly useful."

Some recent state visits: New Zealand Official Visits to Norway


 * Hon Anne Tolley, Minister of Education, June 2009
 * Hon Margaret Wilson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, leading a Parliamentary Delegation, October 2007
 * Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Trade, Defence, Disarmament and Arms Control, January 2007
 * Rt Hon Helen Clark Prime Minister June 2004
 * Dame Silvia Cartwright Governor General-designate March 2001
 * Hon Trevor Mallard Minister of Sport November 2000
 * Hon Max Bradford Minister of Energy 1997
 * Rt Hon Don McKinnon Minister of Foreign Affairs & Trade March 1996
 * Hon Rob Storey Minister of Transport November 1992

Norwegian Official Visits to New Zealand


 * Kjell Magne Bondevik Prime Minister March 2005
 * Kristin Clemet Minister of Education and Research October 2004
 * Select Committee on Finance of the Norwegian Parliament March 1995
 * Minister of Transport and Communications January 1995 and March 1993


 * Coverage by third party sources exists for these visits. If you don't think that the Tampa affair effected the relations between Norway and New Zealand, you're just wrong. And most of those articles I linked to have to do with direct relations between the governments. The others have to do with the relations between the "peoples" of those countries, a form or relations. Your continued arguments, Libstar, that the concept of "relations" between countries is not supported by the definition of the word "relations". Your repeated attempts to remove sourced information from these articles, then nominate them for deletion, , , are disruptive, look bad, and must stop.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * you should keep to the merits of this article not not other articles. state visits are leaders or heads of state only. my point stands, there still only appears to be 2 known state visits between these 2 countries in the last 20 years. ministerial meetings happen around the world every day of the year. "Select Committee on Finance" is not even a Minister. do you concede that some of the "articles" you found such as the Norwegian church in sydney have nothing to do with relations? secondly, you can find evidence of the NZ and norwegian government talking to each other during the Tampa affair? I will continue to nominate articles as I see fit. you have not discouraged me at all. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed nothing from this article, so mentioning it in this AfD adds no further argument to you wanting to keep this article. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * you've given a the NZ govt foreign affairs website as the reference for these official visits. yes you can find third party sources for the visits by the Prime Ministers, but for the ministers? seems little third party coverage for that. and I doubt the visit of a "Select Committee on Finance" didn't really get noticed by the media. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - while contemporary relations are at a relative low level (though still notable), early 20th century relations and the government level cooperation in the whaling industry in the 19th and early 20th century are of high significance. We should avoid the pitfall to only look at the last ten years, but sadly that is how many articles are structured here on Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The two countries have official visits.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That official visits has been exchanged says nothing either way about the existence of a "New Zealand – Norway relations" topic. You need to find sources with that or a similar subject, not simply declare the visits as evidence of notable relations. We go by what reliable secondary sources, and not Wikipedians, tell us is a topic. - Biruitorul Talk 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * there have been at least 50 bilateral articles that have been deleted even though they have had "official visits". simply having official visits is not a guarantee of notability. since Norway was formed in 1905 there have only ever been 2 state visits between Norway and NZ. 2 state visits in 104 years hardly says anything about these relations. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No information was deleted, smaller articles were merged into larger articles in the 50 you are talking about. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no magic number when reached that make it go from not-notable to notable. We also are not required to "say" anything. We can present facts without commentary. If Wikipedia required us to present commentary for every fact, we would have to eliminate every chart and list in Wikipedia. No one is expected to explain why the country with the highest Gross Domestic Product is on the top of the list, we just present the facts and provide a reference. That is the almanac part of Wikipedia. It is a pillar of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * sure there is no magic number but 2 state visits in 104 years since the existence of Norway does not say much about actual relations between these countries. many people bring up multiple bilateral agreements...it appears that there are hardly any agreements between these countries. perhaps the existence of embassies, oh they don't have that either. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that the article has been improved and referenced better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep article does additional resources might improving. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Even without Libstar's additions. This article is more about the foreign relations of New Zealand and Norway themselves, and the foreign relations of any soveriegn nation is notable. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * no, at least 100 of these bilateral articles have been deleted so they are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no significant relationship between the two. Most of the official visits were part of extended overseas tours. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So when Obama picks up his Nobel prize and then goes to the climate talks, we have to delete references to one of them, right, they can't both be notable unless he goes back to Washington and starts from there. Very silly notion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment For examples of previosu coverage of this ground see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * visits by President Obama anywhere in the world generate massive third party coverage which makes it highly notable, and most citizens of the country know that the US President in the country. I am yet to find a newspaper article of some Norwegian Minister visiting NZ, and I doubt more than 100 NZers would even know about such a visit. Remember WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - dull, but relevant for various reasons, not least Antarctica. Could do with more on the whaling issues - NZ has a strong green lobby.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page.  --Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:45, 13 December 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.