Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania–Singapore 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   delete. Arguments for retention seem at least partly based on the previous AfD, and don't sufficiently address the issue of notability. Though three months between nominations is a bit too speedy, the article should be judged on its own current merits. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Romania–Singapore relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I looked at the previous nomination and was far from convinced. a number of people were swayed by WilyD's references which refer to one state visit in 2002 (in a tour of 5 countries), this visit didn't last more than 2 days. so to say this means ongoing and notable relations is a bit of synthesis. there is still a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral. . there's this more recent article but $US100M trade is a small fraction of Singapore's economy, 300 Romanians in Singapore is not notable, and exporting microchips...well Singapore exports computer technology everywhere. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the actual topic of the article does not appear to be notable. As has been pointed out in prior AfDs, it's not enough to sew together bits and pieces to make a Frankenstein topic, it has to be natural-born. Fails WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and handle through the two pages listed under See Also. JJL (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A president stopping by for a day or two doesn't equate to a notable relationship. I don't see any actual relationship that appears notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per everyone above. Also, last time around, several editors felt that the four news blurbs unearthed by WilyD were enough to demonstrate notability, but I remain unconvinced. (I also note that none of them have been incorporated into the article.) Each of these tiny articles deals with the President of Romania's 2002 visit to Asia which included Singapore, but this coverage does not meet the bar of direct, detailed coverage. And even if it did, the event itself is non-notable per WP:NOTNEWS. It simply doesn't make sense that the notability of the more general topic of Romania–Singapore relations could be inherited from a non-notable event. Yilloslime T C  05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm glad to see discussions have grown more mature since the last round. No, a one-day presidential visit does not make for a notable relationship as covered in multiple independent sources. This should've been obvious in March, but July is good enough. - Biruitorul Talk 14:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- Tavix |  Talk  19:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not wanting to echo everyone else, but one visit does not make things notable. Tavix | Talk  19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I see no new issue being raised by the nominator that was not raised in the first discussion. See Undeletion_policy. It appears the nominator simply does not agree with the consensus that was reached at the first discussion that the subject matter's notability was established and is trying to take a second bite at the apple. The multiple sources located during the first debate, upon which many people based their decisions to vote "keep" were just never incorporated in the article. This left the impression that the subject matter's notability was unresearched and unclear. However, the question of the subject matter's notability has been conclusively resolved through consensus in the first debate. The result was keep and it should be a keep now. The sources should also be added to the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cdogsimmons, you seem to be confusing WP:VERIFY with WP:NOTE. Yes, some of the factoids in the article are verifiable with WP:RS but that doesn't make the topic itself notable.  Think of it like this, you might have a congenital chromosome disorder that is verifiable and has an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make you yourself notable for inclusion in our encyclopedia.  Review the guidelines I linked to carefully and you'll see what the rest of us are talking about in this discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject matter's existence is verifiable, and the 3rd party independent sources show the subject matter is notable. Those issues have been addressed. I am well aware of what our policies say. Please read my previous post again. You might try checking out the previous time this article was nominated for deletion, and kept.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also add that 1) consensus can change and 2) with 8 delete !votes, 12 keep !votes, and 1 merge, the last AfD should probably have been closed as "no consensus" rather than as "keep." (And yes, I know determining consensus is not as simple as just counting !votes). Your implication that this re-nomination is inappropriate or an abuse of AfD doesn't hold water: there was certainly not a strong consensus to keep the article, and 3 months have passed since that result. If it had only been 3 weeks, or the article had been overwhelmingly !kept, or if the nominator was on spree of re-AfDing articles that had been previously kept, then I'd be more sympathetic to you point of view. Yilloslime T C  00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The correct place to raise issues with the previous Afd is in a deletion review. It is inappropriate to restart an Afd so soon after a determination has been made (three months doesn't sound like a lot of time to me). It looks like you're just trying to redo the Afd because you didn't like the first result.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * where is the rule that says is inappropriate to restart an Afd so soon after a determination has been made . If you had it your way, no article in Wikipedia could ever be renominated. Deletion reviews relate more to improper closure and are not really meant to judge on whether WP:N is met. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, the first AfD is no consensus in my opinion, I don't question that. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe if you concentrated your efforts on finding say 15 additional reliable and independent sources instead of arguing and pleading to save this, I would reconsider this. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I bet there would still be certain parties that would argue that the subject matter was still notable, that the sources were "trivial". Even if I found 100 sources. There's no specific time that says renominations are inappropriate, but the policy cited above says "Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." So what's "a certain amount of time"? A day? A week? A month? A year? On the other side there is the policy that consensus can change. Here's what I think should happen. First, I think Libstar should notify all the people who took place in the first debate that we are rearguing what they thought had been decided (that's only polite). Second, maybe we can decide (in some other discussion forum) with a consensus what an appropriate amount of time we should give these articles before they should be renominated for deletion after they are kept, or if there was no consensus.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cdogsimmons, come on. First, deletion review is for debates that have just closed, not debates that closed over 3 months ago. Second, zero effort was made during the intervening time to improve the article (not that that's possible), so the case for deletion remains strong. And I hope more March-April AfDs, like the one for this masterpiece, are reopened as the year goes on. WP:CCC is, after all, an official policy.
 * As for your substantive points: yes, it's verifiable that Romania and Singapore have relations, a fact already documented here. However, the third-party independent sources positively do not show "Romania–Singapore relations" to be notable; they show that the Romanian President once stopped over there for a day. When you actually find independent coverage of "Romania–Singapore relations", rather than what you might think those to be, let us know. - Biruitorul Talk 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my above comment. What is "just" closed? A day? Three months? It's debatable. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * agree with above, Biruitorul, could you do a search in Romanian for us? LibStar (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just now the Foreign Ministry's site isn't working, but I have a cached version of their Singapore page. We're told that relations exist and when they began and, tellingly, that Singapore's ambassador to Romania was based in Moscow, and only from 1987 to 1989. And then the famous 2002 visit is mentioned, as well as trade volumes (pretty small, as you can see) and the usual double-taxation avoidance agreement. I also found that in 2007, Loredana Groza sang at a party at the Romanian embassy to mark 40 years of relations. And that's about it... - Biruitorul Talk 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks, it's convinced me even more of the delete argument for this. perhaps Cdogsimmons can prove us wrong and find some substantial non trivial coverage? LibStar (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cdogsimmons, I see my explanation didn't help. Sometimes the first step towards understanding something is just realizing that you don't understand it so you have an open mind and can see clearly.  Also you seem to be confused about AfD and deletion review processes as well as the notability guidelines.  Maybe LibStar can explain these things better than I can.  Don't worry, you're not the only one in this situation.  Drawn Some (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawn Some, this is for future reference. You are coming across as demeaning and insulting. I will assume that that wasn't your intent, but that is how you are coming across to me. Your comment adds nothing to this discussion (besides possibly biasing readers' opinions about both of us) so it would be more appropriately placed at my talk page. Also, if you want to tell me that I misunderstand a policy, you should tell me how you think I misunderstand that policy. Then we can be on the same page. When you simply accuse me of misunderstanding the debate or a policy and leave out the details it comes across as a personal attack. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be defensive, no one knows everything or they would be an omniscient god. I tried to word my comment in a nice manner and even pointed out that you're not the only one.  I have always found it helps to keep an open mind--we never stop learning. Cheers. Drawn Some (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete For all the supposed "notability" of the topic asserted in the last AfD, the article currently doesn't reflect any of it, still being the same pitiful two sentences it was when first nominated. Where is the secondary coverage of the topic as a whole, then? This obviously shouldn't have survived the first AfD. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (redirect) to Foreign relations of Romania . Two bits of information were dug up in the first AfD debate: an official visit by Ion Iliescu to Singapore in 2002 and a double-taxation treaty, both noted by press agencies. I have added them both to the entry for Singapore in Foreign relations of Romania. They show borderline notability. However, after we decided to keep the article on the basis of potential last time, nothing has been done to expand the article and show real notability. But there is some independent interest in the subject, and Romania is spending significant money on maintaining an embassy, so there may be more to the relationship than a quick Google search in English shows. Borderline notability seems a good reason to keep the title as a redirect rather than delete it (what is the harm in a redirect?). Aymatth2 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yilloslime and have removed it, the name "Singapore" is only because it was signed there, much like Kyoto Protocol, Geneva Convention, Rio Declaration. it's a classic barrel scrape though. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of what Aymatth added. BTW, I do   regard a repeat nomination after only three month a little on the fast side, but not a great sin or a reason for rejecting the AfD. DGG (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I do understand Aymatth2's argument, and in principle all these X-Y relation articles could be just redirects. But I honestly don't think it borders any degree of notability. As for the 3 things which supposedly would support notability, I'd like to add: 1) Romanian leaders like visits to Asia. It's an exotic tourist attraction, and during a state visit they are received as kings. In Europe they've already met other people, who already know that they are dumb super-intelligent. In America also nobody treats you as a royalty. Russia treats you with an air of superiority. Africa begs for money. Japan and Australia won't invite you unless there is a purpose to your visit except tourism. So it is largely left to China and SE Asia. Iliescu is not an exception. He is not the only person who was in such situations. I can not explain why Singapore and not say Thailand, but I can explain why not China: in 2002, there was still Jiang Zemin, who once was (when younger) a diplomat in Bucharest for 1 year. Jiang had some idea with whom he would speak,so the whole air of being received as a royalty would have been diluted. 2) The embassy in Singapore is mentained for because there are too many people who must become ambassadors, and we need embassies to send them to. For example in Hanoi, Romanian Embassy is on 46 Dien Bien Phu boulevard, a house slightly bigger than the US Embassy at 42 Dien Bien Phu. Should I continue? 3) Double-taxation treaties actually do not require any work. You simply copy from other treaties each county has signed with third parties. It might require some non-zero work, but then you also need to somehow justify the existence of the embassy and the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money you spend. Dc76\talk 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I read all the external links in the article (a quick skim of the one in Romanian) and those provided above. The result is that in 2002, a politician from Romania visited Singapore while visiting several other countries. There is some minor trade and investment between Romania and Singapore, just like there is between most pairs of countries. A really minor pact about double taxation was signed. There are simply no notable relations, and no secondary sources discuss these relations. It exists, but it is not an encyclopedic topic. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a bit more going on between the two countries. I have added some content. Minor, routine, but noted by reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself: verifiability does not imply notability. Do Romania and Singapore have an open-skies agreement? I'm sure they do. Is that a notable aspect of a notable relationship that's actually been the subject of in-depth coverage outside Wikipedia? Not so much. - Biruitorul Talk 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a question of how information should be organized in the encyclopedia - small very focussed articles or broader ones. I put the content I found into both Foreign relations of Romania and Romania–Singapore relations. I prefer broader articles like Landmarks in Buenos Aires or Inner Terai Valleys of Nepal, but I have no problem with more focussed articles like Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi or Chitwan Valley. Once an entry in a list-type article grows beyond a certain size, a separate article is justified. In this case, I have no strong opinion apart from a preference to redirect rather than delete. Perhaps the relationship will heat up, although I can't imagine why. But if so, I see no reason to discourage editors making a full article. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I undid a couple of content removals by user:Yilloslime which I consider inappropriate during the debate. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to reexamine the material I removed. That "In March 2008, Romania ratified Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. " has absolutely, postively nothing to do with Romania–Singapore relations. The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks is multilateral agreement signed by dozens of countries and ratified by 13 countries so far including Romania. It's only called the Singapore Treaty because that's the city where it was agreed upon. Just as there is nothing Switzerland specific in the Geneva Convention, or Sweden-specific in the Stockholm Convention, it's only a coincidence that the Singapore treaty bears that country's name. That this has escaped other editors is telling of the slipshod research at work in these articles. My other removal simply took away a redundant reference. All the information being sourced to that article is also contained in the next reference, so that reference could suffice for both statements. I don't see the point in sending the reader to two references when one will do. The is a principle that I have long applied. Yilloslime T C  02:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree on the "Singapore treaty" - I didn't read it carefully enough. Not relevant. I added back the Rompres source though, since it has some information on trade volumes, which I added. Again, this is a low-keyed relationship and the information fits into a slot in Foreign relations of Romania. There is no strong argument for or against a stand-alone article: just a question of personal taste on how Wikipedia information should be organized. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since now you are using the Rompres article to source info not in the other reference, I think it's appropriate. See how that works? Yilloslime T C  17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - K2. I added a source that user:LibStar noted in the nomination, and think it is getting a bit too big for a table entry in one or both of the parent "Foreign relation of" articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 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.