Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:NOT, if you think about it. Relevant details are covered here; those interested in seeing the actual signatures can peruse them here; but if we don't have, for instance, Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence or Signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (two rather more important events), then surely we can do without this little experiment as well. Biruitorul Talk 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Utterly pointless, unencyclopedic, indiscriminate information, content fork of Lisbon treaty. This article is like a bad coffee machine. From bean to cup, it's a fu*k up. Talcum Mucker (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, I know that this article needs more content if it is to survive in the long run, and I intend to write more very soon. Biruitorul; I (apparently as opposed to you) am very aware of a certain policy called WP:OTHERSTUFF, but since you've actually started comparing the significance of this event to other historical events, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia already has an article on for instance the Second inauguration of Grover Cleveland. Do you think a post-election formality like an American presidential inauguration is more significant than the highly political (by no means a certainty or a formality) act of 27 sovereign countries signing a European treaty? I'd argue the opposite. But since WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, I'd just like to say that both the inauguration of an American president and the signing of a European treaty are ceremonies, but that the latter is more historic. - SSJ ☎ 10:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fear not, SSJ, I too am "very aware" of WP:OTHERSTUFF, though I am also aware of the fact that it is not policy. As to your argument: true, the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was not insignificant (though let us hope Václav Klaus renders it irrelevant), but all relevant details about it are encompassed right here. Anything else is bound to be trivia: what kind of pens they were using, who supplied the ink, what birds were flying overhead, etc. The only substantive difference so far is your addition of the signatures, which is really overkill (not to belabour the point, but the rather more famous signatures on the United States Declaration of Independence are kept out of that article). But you have a week in which to disprove me - and remember, the burden is on you to do so (an actual policy).
 * About Cleveland: that arose when an endless article on Obama's inauguration was written, and some said "well, if we have that, we need all the other US Presidents too". I agree that's a somewhat dubious line of reasoning, and would welcome an AfD there. - Biruitorul Talk 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep fornow, it doesn't violate any Wikipedia rule. It is notable and verifiable, and the parent article is too large. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:SIZE: "A relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself". Within the context of a wider discussion of the Treaty, a section on the signing is warranted. An article on the signing is not. And at 81 k (considerably less readable prose), we're well below Han Dynasty (123 k), Unification of Germany (107 k) and Jackie Robinson (109 k), all recently promoted FAs, so no, the length of Lisbon Treaty is not really a reason to split this out. - Biruitorul Talk 16:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ehhh: Not sure what I think, but I wanted to note that wikipedia has no other articles that start with "Signing of the Treaty" or "Signing of the" anything.  (We do have Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, but that's about a famous painting of the event). Also, Signing of the Document of the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence redirects to Venezuelan Declaration of Independence. --Milowent (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess the wiki-notability of the signing of a treaty would depend on how much fuss is arranged in relation to a ceremony. And I would suppose that in the 19th century, the signing of a treaty essentially was a group of persons gathering in a room, opening the treaty book and signing it. The portuguese presidency really made a big ceremony out of the whole day. - SSJ ☎ 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, no objections to discussing this at Lisbon Treaty (as we already do). But what's the added benefit of a separate article? - Biruitorul Talk 16:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Do we have a gallery of famous autographs somewhere? This looks like nothing more than an excuse for displaying the signatures, perhaps not of the "Crowned Heads of Europe", but at least the prime ministers.  No wonder it's too large to fit into the parent article, it would be like trying to fit a fully inflated life raft into the family car.   Plenty of air to let out of this one.  Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is what you're looking for? - Biruitorul Talk 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree that this contains nothing that couldn't be covered at the main Treaty of Lisbon article. Redirect and merge anything useful. Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which means that it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. While it is true that GNG does not guaranty of notability, the singing of a notable treaty is, in and of its self, notable in my opinion. The fact that Gordon Brown was late, which received significant media coverage and speculations, also reinforces the claim for a dedicated article. Multiple BBC News articles, sourced in article, and a quick check of other Newspapers (or there online arcives anyway) shows they all reproted on the singing cermonmy., , , , and . More could easly be found. --Elfwood (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Brown controversy, see here (also mentioned at Lisbon Treaty); again, our scope is not to cover every possible detail. We touch on the matter and the relevant details of the signing at Lisbon Treaty; what (other than a set of signatures, the purpose of which I can't really discern) does having a separate article add? - Biruitorul Talk 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should be expanded a bit to avoid being merged, but in principle, it's encyclopedic. — Nightstallion 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an encyclopedic article on a very notable historical event. - SSJ ☎ 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - for the record, SSJ sent out these three messages. While technically worded neutrally, we should also note the three recipients all openly proclaim their support for the European Union. In order to avoid the appearance of canvassing, perhaps SSJ would like to extend similar invitations to avowed Eurosceptics as well. - Biruitorul Talk 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry but that is absurd, support for the EU does not equate to support for this article. I am one who has been contacted and my track record on these matters (even supporting some of SSJ's writings) is hardly one of fanatic endorsement.- J.Logan`t : 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed. This article should be just as significant to a pro-EU member as an anti-EU member. One would consider the event very important because it’s the next big step for Europe and the other because it was the single moment which codified a momentous mistake. To use the nominator’s logic: anyone who thinks WW2 was a bad thing would vote for the deletion of the article. Since this position is clearly absurd, so must be Biruitorul implications of bias. Secondly, I would also like to point out my objection to the nominator’s statement that the United States Declaration of Independence and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact are ‘two rather more important events’ and even if they were why that should matter? If someone had created a ‘Signing of...’ article for one of them and subsequently it was deleted through the Articles for Deletion Process, that would be one thing but merely noting that one does not exist only means that they don’t exist, not that they should not.  I for one would strongly argue that a Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence article should exist. --Elfwood (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will say this: I did not directly accuse SSJ of canvassing; nor did I question the ability of the three to judge impartially, without being overly influenced by their personal beliefs. Indeed, I'm sure they have been impartial. That said, the appearance of impropriety remains. - Biruitorul Talk 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. At first thought, I was thinking "how on earth can you write an article about the signing of the treaty??" But reading through, we have a solid basis for an article here, even without expansion I don't think this warrants the attacks it is attracting (though expansion I think would be highly favourable). It is a notable event that is not totally covered elsewhere and that is not in itself a reason to delete it regardless - if it can be made to work better as a separate article then why not? I totally disagree with the nominator, I find the argument that we "don't need this little experiment" is one totally against any spirit of advancement here, let's experiment! Just because there isn't one on the declaration of independence isn't a reason for there not to be one here, nor does it mean there shouldb't be one for the declaration of independence either. Leave it alone! If it goes down hill in a few months then come back to it but it is depressing to see people stalkign around Wikipedia looking for babies to kill in their cots.- J.Logan`t : 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Just how detailed does it need to get? The article is (by taxonomy, not just its current status) a collection of factoids. The more relevant bits (if any) should be covered in one of the existing articles. Dahn (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see having a separate article about the ceremony that accompanies the signing of any important document.  So far, the history of the Treaty of Lisbon is well-covered in that article, since the ratification process is going on.  Maybe that's the solution, to make this a "history of" article, without all the bells and whistles.   Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Treaty of Lisbon article is far over bloated already, off shoots of the side issues are useful.- J.Logan`t : 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I must echo this point. We also must remember that the Treaty of Lisbon article already has 7 sections linking to a main article (using the tag) and 10 further information sections (using the  tag). The only reason it is not much worse than it already is, is because people are splitting pieces which could possibly be part of the main article in to their own. Could Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon be part of the Treaty of Lisbon article, yes of course it could. But we have found sources, news and media coverage enough that it could also be its own article, and given the state of Treaty of Lisbon and its potential for much future expansion (as soon as the changes it recommends kick in), I think it’s entirely justified to make a dedicated article. --Elfwood (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Are either the treaty itself or the circumstances surrounding its signing controversial? If yes, then keep; if no, then delete.  72.83.205.80 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Firstly, controversial is hardly a requirement, would you remove an article on the signing of the Declaration of Independence merely because there wasn't a punch up afterwards? Secondly, some controversy here: Gordon Brown coming late in a semi-snub, large environmental cost which undermined the EU's environmental soap-box and the fact the treaty itself was controversial. All these points can easily be built on substantially in the article beyond the sections currently being laid out.- J.Logan`t : 08:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, fairly well-sourced and passes the notability test as this was an important signing. It could do some work, but every article is a work in progress. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •[ L ]• EM )  01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't understand the nominator's point about not having articles for other signings that are "rather more important events". Importance is relative. "This little experiment" concerns many more countries than those treaties the nominator chose to make their point. Passes the GNG, so keep. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete An absurd split. The only actual additional information here is the signatures of the signers and the events of the ceremony, including the lunch menu. The most extensive section says that Brown did not attend. The treaty is important, the controversy over it in each nation is important, the court cases deriving from it are important. The ceremony is the least important thing about it.  WP is not an autograph album.   DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that Brown chose not to attend the signing became a well-known diplomatic spectacle, and was a major, well-sourced controversy in the media; but the biggest section in this article is not about that. The menu has been removed, I agree that's trifle. But as Wikipedia has precedence for keeping articles about the most important ceremonies (American presidential inaugurations, opening ceremonies in sports etc.) I think this event, which was highly controversial and by no means a matter-of-course, passes GNG. In the three speeches in the beginning of the ceremony, the importance of "this" day in the history of Europe was stressed several times. - SSJ ☎ 11:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The signatures are not there for the purpose of decoration. It's a list of signatories, which is very relevant, encyclopedic information. For example there is a separate article called "Signatories to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe". - SSJ ☎ 15:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Lear 21 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This event is clearly notable and is an appropriate split from a rather large parent article&mdash;it is established practice to split content from such articles. This article is well sourced and doesn't appear to controvene any of our criteria for deletion. Rje (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This event is a key moment in the history of the European Union. Therefore it is clearly notable. JoJan (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The main article is very very very bulky. It doesn't hurt to break off information that is well sourced and is very notable in it's significance to Europe. Besides if someone is interested in the topic, the information is usefully there. However, I would contact WP:WikiProject European Union, and see what someone in the field thinks about the article? SADADS (talk) 18:41, 3 November 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.