Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines-Singapore 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Philippines-Singapore relations

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

Fails the general notability guideline, not to mention the fact that it was created to DISRUPT Wikipedia by a user, currently blocked, who has threatened to embark on a campaign of sneaky vandalism MyDog22 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — MyDog22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - yet another dismal bilateral relations stub without real expansion potential. That the Flor Contemplacion case caused friction between the two countries is interesting, but surely that can be noted at Flor Contemplacion, no? As for the "Memorandum of Understanding" - such documents are signed every week of every year. They're part of the normal course of international relations, and usually purely symbolic. No added significance is indicated for the memorandum. Thus, delete. - Biruitorul Talk 15:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Absolutely, Philippines and Singapore abut the greater Spratly Islands area and are ASEAN partners.--Mr Accountable (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That both are in ASEAN is shown, not surprisingly, at List of ASEAN member states. And what, precisely, does Singapore have to do with the Spratly Islands dispute? That's a China/Philippines/Vietnam/Taiwan/Malaysia dispute; Singapore is not involved. - Biruitorul Talk 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. Singapore stands to transship a lot of Spratly petroleum products; if there was ever a conflict in Spratlys Singapore could be directly involved.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We write about what is and what has been, not about what might be. - Biruitorul Talk 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Please explain that. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles deal with past and present events; they are not concerned with speculation, unless that is found in reliable sources, not in the minds of individual Wikipedians. - Biruitorul Talk 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What Biruitorul is saying is: put your crystal ball away, and go find a reliable source if you want to use this as evidence of a relationship. MyDog22 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently there is international tension vis a vis the Spratlys. Currently the islands are of strategic importance.  Currently there exists the opinion that there may be a lot of petroleum in the Spratlys.  No speculation is involved.  And speculation is different from writing about the future anyway.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Another article failing the guideline that Wikipedia is WP:NOT random information. No independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of their "relations," so fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The government of Singapore says, "Bilateral ties [with the Philippines] are wide ranging, from an exceptionally strong economic relationship to a flourishing arts and culture scene." It notes that the Philippines is Singapore's largest trading partner within ASEAN and number 11 overall. Singapore, by the same reckoning, is the Philippines' 3rd largest trading partner. Primary source aside, that sounds like a serious relationship to me. Rklear (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but couldn't that also be said at Economy of the Philippines, especially if there's just a number to it? Indeed it is mentioned in the infobox there. - Biruitorul Talk 06:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per substantial coverage of notable relations between Asian neighbors (so to speak). ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the relationship between these two countries clearly meets WP:N:  Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I find it very suspicious that a new editor is starting their Wikipedia career by nominating articles for deletion and referring to obscure disputes. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of those don't actually talk about Philippines-Singapore relations, but I agree, the move is a bit suspicious. - Biruitorul Talk 15:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep significant economic ties between these countries as mentioned. Seems like the nominator has an axe to grind. Hazir (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant historical and trade ties, cites found, and substantial coverage in reliable sources. See my standards. This one is an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —Bluemask (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently documented--and one would certainly expect so, considering the geography. Trying to delete this one shows a determination to ignore WP::BEFORE, an apparent belief that if it possible to move material out of an article into another, one of them should, a willingness to use  the technique well known from fiction AfDs of asking for sources and then denying the relevance of anything submitted, and a general lack of commitment to building instead of unbuilding  Wikipedia.   DGG (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sources supporting the notability of the relationship abound. I strongly suggest that one keep off from giving careless and insensitive remarks before researching the subject matter at hand.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you tell 'em. Careless and insensitive remarks can provoke a potentially valuable contributor like me into first disruption, and then, if continued, into puppetry and even outright vandalism. MyDog22 (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was improved in a point where references are notable enough to support the issue. Looking back, the reason for the nomination in AFD is maybe because the article is short and it lacks substance. But in the first place, notability guideline cannot be an issue as it is supported by four references back then. axrealmdotcom (talk) 14:54, 17 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.