Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania – Sri Lanka 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   delete. ( X! ·  talk )  · @759  · 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Romania – Sri Lanka relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

neither country has a resident ambassador and the country comparison in the article adds no real value when these figures can be obtained from the country's own article of the CIA World Factbook. most of the third party coverage is multilateral. the level of relations is very minor, the level of bilateral trade is less than USD10M, keep in mind some individuals easily spend more than that in 1 country. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - there simply isn't much worth talking about to this relationship. See this, the Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry's description of relations with Sri Lanka. And no independent sources to discuss the subject. As an alternative, redirect to Foreign relations of Romania (which summarizes the relevant information in the table) or Foreign relations of Sri Lanka. - Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * might I add that Biruitorul is a Romanian speaker so if he can't find anything...I don't think much exists. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I might add that despite his claim that "no independent sources to discuss the subject", the nominator actually provided an independent third party source detailing the relationship. I'm not impressed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * where is the significant third party coverage? WP articles do not hinge on this 1 third party source. I'm not impressed about trying to make a real article when significant third party sources do not exist. let's be realistic, not all bilateral articles make the cut. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point was that we should rely on Birutorol's vote because he couldn't find any sources when he could not even find the one you provided?!? Your claim that "WP articles do not hinge on this 1 third party source" is based on what? Not the WP:GNG guidelines. Those say that multiple sources are preferred, not necessary.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Unlike Estonia – Sri Lanka relations, I see no real content in this one, nor potential for anything further. Remove the unnecessary "country comparison", and all that's left is a Groubani article.  There isn't anything here that isn't already mentioned in other articles. Mandsford (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - there is already some noteworthy information here, and given Ceauşescu's rather active foreign policy more informaton could be added. Pantherskin (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * please provide evidence of actual coverage and whether Ceauşescu said anything notable on Sri Lanka or visited Sri Lanka. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 days have elapsed and Pantherskin cannot find evidence on Ceauşescu and Sri Lanka. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article should stay because of the fact that Sri Lanka and Romania both have bilateral relations with each other and for over 50 years. The only problem is there isn't much information that can be found on this topic because these two countries are an unlikely pair.--Blackknight12 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * simply having bilateral relations for over 50 years is not a reason for keeping. you even admit there is a lack of significant coverage on this topic. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that User:Blackknight12 is the article creator. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This one is worse than most, as its main feature is a simple comparison of the countries with no bearing on their relations. Apparently, though, their significant enough to have non-resident ambassadors. No coverage of the topic as a whole or the significance of these two countres' relations on the world stage from third-party sources. Non-notable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator actually provided an independent third party source detailing the relationship. And Romania has an embassy in Colombo, again the information was provided in a source given by the nominator .--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This topic falls under the general notability guidelines which require that there be direct detailed coverage of a topic in multiple reliable, independent sources if we are to have an article about it on wikipedia. I'm not seeing that for this topic. There's really nothing here.Yilloslime T C  19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There seems to be no coverage of this relationship in any type of source. Mah favourite (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator actually provided an independent third party source detailing the relationship. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * it is not the responsibility of the nominator to find sources. those wanting to keep should find evidence. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that Mah favorite has based his delete vote on something that is not true. Since you are nominating this article for deletion on the basis of an absence of sources, you DO have a responsibility to do a good faith search for those sources! Articles_for_deletion provides: "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." The fact that you think you don't after nominating hundreds of these articles for deletion for this reason astounds me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The existence of relations has been verified and independent third party coverage exists satisfying notability. Votes to delete have ignored these cites which were provided by the nominator. This article requires development, not deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * there is no significant third party coverage of these bilateral relations. I note there have been no agreements in the past 20 years despite Romania moving to a capitalist free trade economy. you have found 1 mere source which is more "we want to do more trade" usual thing without evidence of significant trade or trade agreements. I don't deny the existence of relations which can be easily verified. however, the existence of relations is not the same as notable relations. Wikipedia is about notable topics not every topic. I think it is really stretching it compared to other notable examples to say notable relations exist here. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You say affirmatively that there is no significant third party coverage but it's clear you haven't done very much looking. Notability doesn't expire. Saying that we shouldn't have a mention of international agreements because they're more than 20 years old is clearly WP:recentism.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I won't speak for anyone else, but I personally I am not ignoring anything. Firstly, I've never doubted that the relations exist--that's not the issues. The issue is notability, not verifiability. Secondly, and to the point, a lone article on a Romanian trade official's address to the Ceylon Chamber Commerce does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". Yilloslime T C  23:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:GNG requirements make clear that "significant" coverage can be established by just one article. It is simply preferred that there be multiple sources. ("The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.") --Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus there are other sources. The bilateral treaties between Romania and Sri Lanka are mentioned in books., --Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * remember that GNG also considers the depth of coverage, it does not appear that this is in depth coverage rather 1 or 2 line mentions. if for example there was a whole newspaper article about these agreements not treaties, that would be indepth. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. Your assertion that these are not "treaties" appears to be false. You certainly haven't provided any evidence. The independent third party cites showing the existence of relations that I've collected so far are as follows: Governmental cites providing info: .--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation I have seen in almost every bilateral combination of any 2 countries that do trade even at the very small levels of these 2 countries. it is hardly something that adds greatly to proving notable bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding agreements The Agreement on the promotion and protection of investment and
 * ...says the guys who's tried to delete hundreds of these articles. Your personal opinion that a bilateral international treaty shouldn't qualify as being significant enough for mention in this encyclopedia is pretty unconvincing. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of all human knowledge: all of the topics covered by a conventional print encyclopedia plus any other "notable" topics, which are permitted by unlimited disk space. This article could be kept under either of these criteria.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of all human knowledge" not true. my family tree, my under 10 basketball team members and local shops are part of human knowledge but do not and should not have WP articles. according to WP:NOT not everything qualifies for inclusion. all WP articles must be notable for inclusion, please read WP:N and WP:GNG let's await the consensus of this. by the way they are agreements, treaties are much stronger. If they were treaties they would add to notability more. secondly you seem to ignore the fact that in the last 22 years the countries have not bothered to negotiate 1 agreement. says something about their "notable" relations doesn't it? especially since Romania is a democratic free trade country now. you also probably oppose 100s of bilateral articles that have been redirected too. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also note that the treaty on economic and technical cooperation is mentioned in The American review of East-West trade, Volume 1‎ - Page 151 which provides "An agreement on economic and technical cooperation between Romania and Ceylon provides for delivery of 1 50000 tons of oil and oil products by Romania...." --Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * it's an agreement not a treaty. also not sure if this source is really indepth. does it just mention this agreement in 1 line and that's it? is there major newspaper coverage of this agreement? LibStar (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a treaty? "A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations." That sounds like what we have here. Major newspaper? How do you define that? Since there's no requirement that a "major" newspaper mention the subject matter for the topic to be notable, I don't think that's very relevant.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - in my opinion, significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist. That is not to say that the topic itself does not exist, etc., just that I don't feel that the threshold has been met. Cocytus   [»talk«]  16:52, 20 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.