Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia – Saint Lucia 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. Shereth 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia – Saint Lucia relations

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

very little coverage of actual bilateral relations, yes they've recognised each other but that's about it. ,. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Recognized each other" is a relation, however low-level.  A useful stub.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:10, July 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * no simply have a relation is not enough for an article, there have been at least 300 of these pairing deleted for failing WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not go through this useless discussion again, shall we? Thas has nothing to do with the written notability guideline, it has to do with its philosophical interpretation.  Some folks think that anything that an average Joe Six Pack is unlikely to ever know or show interest in should be deleted, while others believe that if there is even a scrap of useful information (which, of course, should be verifiable), that scrap can be useful to somebody and should be kept.  Three hundred or so articles may have been deleted, but how many similar articles have been kept?  In my (limited) experience, there's been quite a few as well, which again shows the philosophical nature underlying this mad deletion spree.  You can cry "non-notable" all you want; the past outcomes clearly showed that it's nothing but an opinion of a group of people, but certainly not of the whole community.  There's been a post somewhere about a month ago calling to freeze the bilateral relations nominations until the problem can be discussed as a whole&mdash;whatever happened to that initiative?  Regards,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:22, July 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. we can verify a relationship exists but it is not subject to significant wide third party coverage as per WP:GNG. If you want to keep this article provide some reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists"? Bah!  Coming from someone whose argument is "BUTWEDELETEDALLTHATOTHERSTUFF" it sounds, pardon the assumption, disingeneous...  It's not about that other stuff exists, either; it's about the fact that it exists because it was kept despite all your best efforts to get rid of it.  As for all that other brouhaha with the sources, we (yes, you and me) have already been through that before; I have no intention to cover the length of this circle again, because all my arguments fly over your head anyway.  No offense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:04, July 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Arguments fly over our heads? Wouldn't it be simpler to just say you think we're idiots and move on? Would save you a shitload of typing. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hard as it may be, I am doing my best to assume this is a good-faith nomination. There is no need to use language like you've just did and especially put words I never intended to say into my mouth.  I understand you might have had a bad day, but it's no reason to take it out on others.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, July 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence of significant coverage of bilateral relations to back your keep argument. simple. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A relation isn't the same as notable relations. Without even pointing to the fact that the article is titled "relations" so a single so-called relation wouldn't even cover the article, mere recognition isn't notable. I don't see anything notable about this relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator of this article User:Russian Luxembourger was not notified of this discussion on her talk page by the nominator. I have notified her per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete These countries don't even have representation in each other, and--surprise surprise--there are no independent secondary sources that address the topic of their relations directly or in detail, so WP:N is not met. Yilloslime T C  16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I think the fact that they have embassies is enough to satisfy marginal notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete But they don't have embassies. The Russian embassy in Jamaica has a guy who deals with St. Lucia, and there's no St. Lucia embassy in Russia.  The relations are a lot less notable than most such articles that I've seen.  Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for, dare I say it, lack of independent, in-depth coverage of the topic in multiple, independent sources. Ezhiki's special pleading ("let's keep it because, even though it doesn't amount to much, we should still keep it") is unconvincing. - Biruitorul Talk 03:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The key words in the article are "so far". So far means five years, and have hardly been Earth shattering. Not notable at present. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  05:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 13 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.