Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Islands – Venezuela 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. Believing that it's notable without providing evidence does not show notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (sorry about closing it 2 hours early, didn't notice)

Solomon Islands – Venezuela relations

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

current article seems to hinge on one news article, there is a real lack of coverage of actual ongoing bilateral relations. , anything useful could be placed in Foreign relations of X article. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as an article on an overview of relations between two countries is worthwhile. It should be checked under WP:RECENT. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * no, not all this bilateral pairings are automatically notable, at least 300 of these have been deleted in recent months. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * None deleted, all merged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * since April at least 300 have been deleted. of course some are notable, please demonstrate significant third party coverage to meet WP:N. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The information can be preserved in the FRO articles (Foreign relations of Venezuela, Foreign Relations of Solomon Islands). Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * on the basis of what? how does this article meet WP:N? LibStar (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep because the government reaching out to a country they never had any relationship before, to form one now, is notable enough. Also, why do you mention that some of these articles have been deleted in recent months?  Quite a number have also been saved.  You can't just copy over past results to every single AFD.   D r e a m Focus  19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * some bilateral articles are notable some are not. I did not mean all are not notable. just that many have been deleted. you have provided zero evidence of significant third party coverage in demonstrating that this meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that every time, dismissing everyone else opinions outright. You try to discourage others from participating and stating their opinions on whether something is notable and should be kept.  And yet consensus shows time and again that most people believe articles with any relationship mentioned, should be saved, and normally are.   D r e a m Focus  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you still have provided zero evidence of how this article meets WP:N. anyone can contribute, that's what AFDs are for. most people believe articles with any relationship mentioned, should be saved, over 70% of bilateral articles I've nominated have been deleted. you are arguing for keep on the basis of me being the nominator WP:ADHOM not on how the article meets WP:N.LibStar (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I stated why I thought it was a notable relationship. You then start with your usual nonsense.  It doesn't matter how many articles you managed to destroy, there no need to mention that every chance you get, and try to convince people there is no point in resisting your will.  Plenty of articles are saved, if enough people are around to take note of your actions.  I don't care who nominated it for deletion, I am against deleting anything that has any value at all, and will always be here to do the right thing no matter what.   D r e a m Focus  04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * where is your evidence of significant third party coverage to meet WP:N? LibStar (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus will determine if it is notable, nothing else. Wikipedia is not a set of rules.  The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law.  Everyone will read the article, and determine whether they believe it should remain or not.   D r e a m Focus  04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

the best way to show an article is notable (especially if it has very little references) is to show evidence of significant third party coverage, that is standard practice in AfDs. otherwise it's like saying WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For people who don't like to think for themselves, its best to have a link to someone they consider more important than them, to do the thinking for them. But that isn't the only way to convince someone an article is notable.  We have these discussions here for people to convince one another, and then form their own opinions.  Mine is still for keep.   D r e a m Focus  05:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you should understand that Wikipedia articles rely on notability established through reliable source. I'll happily withdraw my nomination if you can find 10 non trivial reliable sources demonstrating notable bilateral relations between these 2 countries. because you have failed to source even one. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough to base any sort of comprehensivity on, and apparently little of such exists. No coverage of the topic as a whole. Fails WP:GNG. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as per WP:N unless there is a policy that we have policy of having articles are every country with every country like Bhutan with Paraguay or Mongolia with Kiribati Relations between several countries are non existent and have an article for each one while relationship between Paraguay and USA or Brazil will be notable but surely not on with Bhutan similarly Venezuela relations with Brazil or Colombia or USA will be notable but not this one.Solomon Islands ties with Australia may be notable but not this one.The foriegn between some countries are notable but not all foriegn relation between each and every country is not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless anyone can magically discover some notable relations between these two countries, that fact that the Solomon Islands recently decided to buy some oil from Venezuela is not enough to hang an entire article on. I've looked through news hits and book hits. I found a visit of a Venezuelan representative to the Pacific Islands forum, but that's not bilateral:, and a different Latin American nation, Cuba, was alleged to be giving military aid to the Solomon Islands:. Come on DreamFocus, RAN, why argue for keeping a contentless article? Neither of you have presented any evidence of searching for sources. Blindly voting keep and slapping on the rescue tag in the hope of garnering keep votes is wearing thin - and I say this as a member of the ARS who has criticised editors for being overzealous in their deletion of bilateral relations articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No actual notability. Not even a junior water polor or horseshoes match to try to twist into notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable cruft. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 17 August 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.