Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

last nomination was definitely a non consensus but was closed as keep by an admin who is now banned from closing bilateral AfDs. this article hinges on 3 sources, no evidence of trade agreements, trade or many heads of state meetings. yes "supported each other's bid for a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council" but this happens regularly between lots of countries. a lack of significant coverage of actual relations. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looking at previous AfD it seems a bit strange. That, plus this nom's explanation, and a look at the page makes sense. This would be a bizarre combination absent some international incidents I'd be happy top learn about here... except there seems to be none. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, there have been two previous Adfs for this article. The first discussion in which this article was nominated for deletion was at Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations and the result was no consensus The second discussion at Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations resulted in a Keep. Given the fact that this article has been previously discussed all the participants in the first and second Afds and significant contributors to the article should be notified of this discussion by the nominator. Obviously this article could be improved further but for the same reasons given in the first and second discussions, this article has enough 3rd party independent sources to pass WP:N. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * as stated in my nomination, admin Docu has been banned from closing any bilateral AfDs, the previous one was definitely no consensus. Docu's keep assessment reflected his continual bias in erroneously closing bilateral AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be in error.  D r e a m Focus  05:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:KETTLE on your part. you generally just appear here without actually providing additional sources and vote only 1 way. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the nominator has neglected (apparently intentionally) to notify the participants in previous discussions, I will notify them. I ask the closing Administrator for an extra few days before closing so that those users are given a fair chance to participate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * anything to save the article? remember the time you didn't notify all AfD participants of the deletion review for Romania-Sri Lanka? LibStar (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep You know, I'm glad that Wikipedia keeps track of whether administrators can do their job impartially, and we need to speak out when we see a bias toward inclusionism or exclusionism (I saw one recently who closed a discussion as "no consensus" because a second person had argued "keep").  But I don't see that the administrator's later demotion makes any difference.  As noted in the discussion before, the Philippines and Romania seem to consider their relationship important, and they've been working on building ties since 2002, when the Romanian President and a large entourage came to Manila. [  They've had a close relationship on the U.N. Security Council, where they worked together to get two of the non-permanent seats.  .  Romania called on the Philippines to send railroad workers during a labor shortage in 2009, the distance between the two notwithstanding .  The Manila press seems to celebrate ties with Romania .  Last year, the nominator, LibStar, did a wonderful job in cleaning up the mess that had been left by Groubani in the reckless creation of hundreds of Nation X and Nation Y articles.  And folks like Richard Norton and I did a great job in cleaning up those articles that had potential, including this one.  To the extent that people have made improvements on a neglected article, I don't see any reason to revisit it.  [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * supposed cooperating to get a UN seat to me unless various sources can be found is nothing different with hundreds of countries that call other countries to vote for each other in gaining UN seat. better indications are state visits, trade agreements, significant trade etc. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Libstar, your personal opinion that votes of UN support aren't as important astrade agreements is not really the point. The fact is that the UN support is documented by an independent third party source. That supports the argument that the subject matter of this article is notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yes we can verify this, but this act in itself does not constitute notability. Significant coverage is what makes something more notable. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article has more potential and some nice references that will act as a starting point for future expansions. LibStar has indeed done a good job with bi-laterals, not just deleting them but also expanding them. If we put work into these afds then they will grow, I myself have done this for many and its a rewarding endeavor. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. If we're to the point of having reruns on articles that had been improved, that indicates to me that the original goal of the community-- to get rid of myriad stubs that had no prospect of being added to-- has been accomplished.  Many people are to be congratulated (Richard A. Norton and Birutorul and Marcusmax and LibStar and myself, to name a few).  I regret that this one has been brought back to the table after the successes of 2009.  Mandsford (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As I said last time, and will probably repeat six months from now when he nominates it yet again, them supporting each other's seats is worth noting. It got plenty of news coverage, as have other things between the nations.  Searching in the native languages of these countries, in major newspapers of their nations, and you can surely find more information about them.   D r e a m Focus  05:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never nominated this article before. Plenty of news coverage? the article has only 3 sources. do you even read the articles or vote! blindly? in the native languages of these countries, in major newspapers of their nations, and you can surely find more information about them" that is pure presumption on your part, the last nominator of this article is in fact a Romanian speaker. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you might want to check out WP:BURDEN one of these days - we rely on published sources that are actually brought to the table, not on speculation of what might be out there (and most likely isn't, given the absurdity of the pairing). And no, procedural maneuvers in the UN aren't substantive proof of notable relations, for which in-depth coverage would be necessary. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've lost me. How is the pairing absurd? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because its notability is not immediately apparent through readily-available, substantive coverage. For Romania, such pairings in Asia are limited to China, North Korea, Israel, Turkey, Iran, and perhaps Syria, India and Vietnam. Not the Philippines. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep easily meets the usual inclusion criterion, WP:N. I see no reason or argument presented why this is an exceptional case that would warrant irregular treatment. Wily D  17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That tired non-argument again? A lot of such poor articles were deleted, so, no, they don't meet the criteria. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The normal, pedestrian interactions of governments aren't notable. That's simply business as usual. The lack of coverage of anything that stands out as notable makes me go with delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Direct, detailed coverage of this topic in reliable, independent sources has not been demonstrated. Therefore, it fails WP:N. If no one else is writing about these countries' relations, then neither should we. We are, after all, an encyclopedia. Yilloslime T C  19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting the facts of the article isn't helpful to the discussion. Please look at the article before offering your opinion.  This isn't a vote, so an argument based on a false premise doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. Before closing this discussion, the administrator will look at the article and see that Direct, detailed coverage of this topic in reliable, independent sources has been demonstrated. Wily D  19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wily, please assume good faith. Of course I've looked at this article closely, and considered all the sources. And of course the closing will do the same. It is my opinion, and one that I stand by, that direct, detailed coverage has not be demonstrated. You are free to disagree. But if there's anything on this page that's not helping the discussion it's your accusations of "misrepresenting the facts" and admonitions to "look at the article before offering ones opinion." The latter jab is particularly infuriating as it comes someone who !voted in 3 bilateral AfDs in 8 minutes. Yilloslime T C  20:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been established, cookie-cutter arguments are allowed by the "keep" side in these arguments, but not the "delete" side, remember? -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The inherent notability of such articles is backed by the reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 sources is hardly significant coverage. not all these bilateral relationships are inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * seems like an almost identical standard text argument was also used here and here. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per first nomination. There are no Filipinos living or working in Romania. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like a "delete" vote then. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, how do you know that there are no Filipinos living or working in Romania? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There seems to be no unusualy close ties or co-operations about this relasionsship. At this rate there will be a page on every countries ties with each other country.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, in fact we are on a deletion trend. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Romanian Foreign Affairs Office has a page only about the bilateral relations (i.e. it has no generalities about Philippines.) A start-class article can be written. I've added the 2002 visit of (then) president Ion Iliescu to the article already. Although I don't think this is particularly important, there's a 1992 trade agreement. (The absence of both of these elements was raised by the nominator.) The page also gives a couple of projects built by Romanian companies: the Leyte-Cebu power line, and a cement factory in Iligan, Mindanao. The total figure of Philippine's investments in Romania as of 2007; it's only about $600K. It is rather trivial info, but someone that doesn't understand Romanian would have trouble finding it assuming they cared to read it. I don't promise to work on this article myself, but if someone uses google translate to add all that info, I'll give it a proofreading; I'm ro-N. Pcap ping  00:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Romanian Foreign Ministry has pages on every country with which Romania has relations, so that's no particular sign of notability (especially because the rules call for independent sources). 146.243.4.157 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep... I !voted delete on the older AfD... The article has improved and sources have been provided now. I do not believe in inherent notability for bilateral relations, but the bar should be fairly low. Gigs (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that there are 92 million people in one of the nations and 22 million in the other, the relationship seems peculiarly insubstantial and uninteresting. (I recommend an increased level of sexual activity.) Still, what little there is of it is satisfactorily backed up in this article. &para; I just love these articles; their leads are so inspirational. Consider: Philippines-Romania relations are foreign relations between the Philippines and Romania. Damn, that's well put; especially when we consider the number of readers who'd otherwise presume that they were kinds of cheese. Is it just my imagination, or is there perhaps a curious echo in that of Holy See-Romania relations are foreign relations between the Holy See and Romania and possibly even of Bosnia and Herzegovina-Romania relations are foreign relations between Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina? -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The indiscriminate bilateral relations articles were all created by the same banned editor. Gigs (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not one of the unreasonable ones. There are significant relationships between the two, enough to justify an  article.    DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced article. My lord, give it a rest already. If admin Docu is not allowed to close bilateral articles anymore, Libstar should not be able to nominate them for deletion anymore (anyone care to open a community ban on ANI suggesting this?). In addition, I have solicited User:Docu whether he wants to pursue an overturn of this ban, User_talk:Docu which was done with 8 editors supporting (libstar included) and 2 opposing, after being open only 16 hours. Yet another example of why community bans are simply mob rule and are not helpful. (PS libstar, no messages on my talk page please, i am all too familiar with your modus operandi) Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 10:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If something "happens regularly between lots of countries", we don't need to write about it? That, and the above points.  Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends what that "something" is. If it's a war, then it's a good idea for us to cover it. If it's the UN matter, then no, that usually passes without being noticed by this encyclopedia, except during silly "rescue" attempts of pointless "articles" like this one on topics no one in the real world has ever noticed exist. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of things pass without being noticed by this encyclopedia. It doesn't mean all of them should, nor, especially, does it mean that we should delete valid articles for that reason.  Furthermore, just because you (I take that's what you mean by "real world") don't care, does not mean no one else will.  This AfD is a particularly good illustration of that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:09, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "real world" is published sources attesting to the notability of this topic as such. For instance, if someone were to contest the notability of Romania – United Kingdom relations, one could easily point to theses ("Romanian-British political relations between 1936 and 1941"; "Romanian-British political relations in 1918-1940"), academic careers and even [books http://www.bcub.ro/continut/noutatipp/mai_soc.php] ("Romanian-British Relations between 1914 and 1924") devoted to the subject. With "Philippines-Romania relations", no such depth of coverage exists. Instead, a few users have thrown in passing mentions of the two countries they happened to find. This cannot substitute for actual, real-world if you will, coverage of a topic. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This may not be book length but it's surely real world. Enough for a short article. Pcap ping  16:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but it's also not independent of the subject (as required by WP:GNG). That the Romanian Foreign Ministry writes about relations with the Philippines (and, I reiterate, every other country) is nice, but it's also their job to do so and they're the ones handling relations. That no one else has bothered to touch the subject is telling. 146.243.4.157 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point that I think IP 146... was making--and one that I've tried to make in various ways--is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources. One could certainly (and people do do this all the time on WP) synthesize a treatment of a topic out of primary sources and passing mentions in newspaper articles, but this more akin to writing a research paper than it is writing an encyclopedia. I think many people here don't understand this fundamental distinction. Yilloslime T C  17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * silly "rescue" attempts of pointless "articles" like this one on topics no one in the real world has ever noticed exist Fighting words! The first half is very much in the traditional rough-and-tumble spirit of AfDs, and doesn't trouble me at all. As for the second half, you puzzle me a little. I'd have inexpertly guessed that a more than infinitesimal percentage of the tens of millions of people in Romania and the tens of millions of people in the Philippines would have noticed the existence of this topic. Very unfortunately I'm not able to communicate in either Romanian or Filipino and thus cannot google. I'm also far from any library with a good reference section in either language. I do realize that a topic such as this is of minuscule interest to right-thinking anglophones compared with, say, Category:Star Trek, but I'd have guessed that somebody in the real world would have noticed that it existed. Am I really deluding myself? (Or have I fallen asleep and woken up amid Idiocracy?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -Valid article ‡ Himalayan ‡  ΨMonastery 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Still highly lacking as an article in regards to providing information on the topic as a whole. There are no references to sources that examine the topic as a whole and their impact either on the two countries or the rest of the world stage, which is unsurprising as relations seem only to go back fifteen years. What is here is pretty hum-drum and routine information that could just as easily be presented in the two "Foreign Relations of..." articles in the "See also" section. Not a notable relation. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, I'll admit my bias: I am an English-speaking American, and I'm deeply offended by the very thought that two countries should have relations between each other without using the US/English as a conduit. Second: When nominating AfDs, I believe an editor should ask him and/or her-self, "Is [target for deletion] a part of the 'sum of human knowledge'". If the answer is "yes", and the article is in poor shape, and the editor cares about the article, then please do some work on it. If the answer is "no", then the editor should perhaps be writing a blog rather than attempting to decrease "the sum of human knowledge". Dekkappai (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the previous nomination was made by a Romanian speaker who would have made a search in Romanian. English is widely used in the Philippines including official publications. your argument fails to supply any evidence of significant third party coverage as per WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous nominator was also topic banned by the ArbCom from editing anything related to Eastern Europe. Does that mean you're just proxying for a banned user? I hope not. Just because he understands Romanian, it doesn't mean he searched for anything. I found the RO Foreign Office page in about 30 secs, and it was last updated in 2007 (surely it was up during the previous AfD). Only one Romania newspaper, Ziua, has web archives going back to 2000, but it surely covered Iliescu's visit, and so did the Philippine press    . There are also guest workers from Philippines in Romania, according to press reports    . Romania exports its own workers to the EU (mostly), and imports replacements from East Asia; only a few thousand are from the Philippines tough  (3,500 as of 2009). There's also coverage in the Philippine press about this issue  .  Not sure if this info qualifies for this article though, although the last story mentions some waves in the Philippine Senate  “for the protection of the said workers and the improvement of their work conditions therein.” I understand that some editors think that only wars and diplomatic spats are worth including in Wikipedia, while economic relations are boring to them. To each his own.  Pcap  ping  14:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have no problems with this article. It seems to also have improved quite a bit since the nomination, and now has substantial, useful, well referenced information. Lampman (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I verified that what Lampman wrote above is true. The article is close to a stub, and stubs with verifiable -- and verified -- information, sufficient to show minimal notability, belong in the project as a place to collect further verifiable text as it appears. It's possible that each country article would have an associated page on the foreign relations of that country, but, if so, this stub would become a redirect to a section on one of those pages, but, quite the same, those pages could consist of very short sections for truly minor "relations," plus links to more specific relations stubs or deeper articles, with only very summary data, such as date established. Probably the separate articles should remain, and relations pages started to collect them all in one place also. --Abd (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic, text and references are all valid. Effort in this AfD would have been better invested in the improvement of the article. gidonb (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2010 (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.