Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand–Ukraine 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   no consensus. I see arguments for deletion based on precedent, which includes the various per nom votes by inference. Also took HilaryT's comment to be sarcastic and pointed, though they may correct me if I am mistaken. The keep arguments pleasantly appeal to WP:N and present sources. On the balance of the discussion, the arguments for keeping are stronger, so this could close as either keep or no consensus, really. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thailand–Ukraine relations

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

Contested prod. Numerous recent precedents have established that mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable, and as far as I can tell, that's all there is here, so this "article" should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Gotta agree with you on this one. Weak Keep Gotta agree with WilyD on this one that there are sources that indicate notability, not surprising in that Thailand and Ukraine are both fairly populous nations. Whether someone will incorporate these into an article is another matter.  The persons who sire these articles, and then run off for their next one-night stand, leave it for more responsible persons to do the work.   I have no respect for people who want to create "pretty flags" type stubs for every possible permutation from Afghanistan-Andorra relations to Vatuanu-Venezuela relations, without having anything to say.  Keep nominating 'em. Mandsford (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I see what's happening here. The reason you are ignoring your own policies and voting to delete stubs without googling to see if they meet WP:N is because you want to punish the people who create them. But presumably those people don't give a damn if one article is deleted, they only need a minute to copy and paste another one. The people you are really punishing are precisely responsible editors like WilyD. He's one's of the guys that does the work and at least looks for sources, and how does he feel about these nominations? Hilary T (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Other than the date of recognition, all info is already covered inDiplomatic missions of / in Ukraine. While I agree that precedent is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable, there do appear to be at least a few articles related to this topic in some newspapers. So if someone can convince me these sources have real content (and better yet: incorporate this content into the article) I'll consider changing to weak keep. But for now, I don't see any point in keeping this article around. Yilloslime T C  04:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - allow me to one-up that: if someone manages to build a legitimate article on this topic, as opposed to throwing together random snippets of news events, I promise to withdraw the nomination. Over four days are left in the AfD: let's see what keep voters (should any come along, which I'm sure will happen) have to offer. - Biruitorul Talk 05:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; yet another article about a bilateral relationship which was mass-produced without any attempt to first establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Thailand has no representation in Ukraine, and that's been enough to get rid of other articles (has proven here and here). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks non-trivial content that would establish notability. Merely existing is not enough for an article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm coming round to Biruitorul's point of view on these things. We should ignore the policy that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" which will save us the trouble of googling for sources. After all, just because you can have an article, it doesn't mean you should and merely existing is not enough for an article. Furthermore I agree that the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject " is far too low and Wikipedia should delete every article which doesn't prove that it can become a featured article. Hilary T (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On other other hand, if someone can actually turn it into a featured article within the duration of this discussion I'm willing to think about reconsidering my vote. Hilary T (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If diplomatic relations are not notable, then why have Template:Foreign relations of Thailand and Template:Foreign relations of Ukraine? As long as Category:Bilateral relations of Thailand and Category:Bilateral relations of Ukraine are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted.  I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a very odd argument and I don't know where to begin. Templates are not articles; they are navigation tools. All they need to justify their existence is a set of articles to link to. An article needs to discuss a subject from reliable sources. The extent of the "subject" here, apparently, is the date that relations were established. WillOakland (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument seems like a tautology to me. Yilloslime T C  03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple: the template is for notable relations about which actual articles can be written - say, France–Thailand relations or Japan–Thailand relations. For information that can be summarised in just a line (ie, the fact that relations exist), we have Diplomatic missions of Thailand. - Biruitorul Talk 02:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add that any editor can, at any time, create a template. As such, a template does not imply an endorsement of anything, any more so than the creation of a category does.  Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as an apparent non-subject. WillOakland (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:N, and I see no reason to deviate from it. and so forth.  Wily D  14:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, the two are focused on "strengthening trade and investment". Nice, but that's part of the normal course of international relations and not really at an encyclopedic level. Certainly not enough to create a viable article. - Biruitorul Talk 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out normal bilateral relations are usually notable. Their "routine goings on" are the subject of significant publication by indepedent, reliable parties because their goings on are notable.  You haven't advanced any argument why we should ignore longstanding precedent on our inclusion criteria. Wily D  16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A three-day visit by a commerce minister? Please. Let's try to remain cognizant of the difference between news (which belongs at WikiNews) and items of more enduring significance. - Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out the actions of the leaders of large nations are often considered more notable than yours or mine (assuming you're not a leader of a large nation, which is just a guess on my part, admittedly). If you're unhappy with this situation, write God or the Big Bang, but our goal at Wikipedia is to reflect the universe as it exists, not as it ought to exist under some moral standard. Wily D  18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends on the action - we don't, for example, mention all visits of the President of the United States to Britain, and of the British Prime Minister to the US, at United Kingdom – United States relations, even though those are two of the most powerful individuals in the world, unlike the Thai Commerce Minister. - Biruitorul Talk 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't unconnected to the fact that Anglo-American relations are so substantial it currently takes a few hundred articles to cover the notable bits Category:United_Kingdom–United_States_relations and so forth. Wily D 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet, most of the visits go entirely unmentioned. Of course, the Atlantic Conference is notable, but not, say, George W. Bush's 2008 visit to London. - Biruitorul Talk 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's one thing to nominate an article that has virtually zero content. However, when someone actually attempts to improve an article, responses like "Oh please" or "That's nice" aren't very constructive.   I find WilyD's approach better than the inclusionist nonsense of "this stub that will magically improve on its own".  I'm curious about what, if anything, you would consider to be a "notable" example of relations between two nations.  You're under no obligation to answer that question, but I am (sincerely) interested in your thoughts about how an article of this type can be improved.  Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if I could do that - there was a time when one could improve the articles, rather than just demonstrate the exceed the standard of WP:N for inclusion, but with a handful of editors engaged in a full-on assault, it's hard to find the time. To the best of my recollection, this is the only substantial improvement I've been able to make, having to play goaltender & janitor these days.  With these attacks having some (though not much) traction, it's also hard to work up the moral to improve things, expecting someone will want to come along and knock it over. 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of bilateral relationships are notable: Mongolia–Russia relations, India – United States relations, Franco–German relations, Japan–Netherlands relations, France–Thailand relations, etc. All I ask for (and, more pertinently, all WP:N asks for) is in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable sources documenting a significant relationship. Preferably, that includes close cultural, geographic, historic and/or economic ties. Mere existence of relations plus, say, a ministerial visit and a few symbolic agreements doesn't really cut it. - Biruitorul Talk 19:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N is pretty clear in what it does, or doesn't ask for. It is, more or less, that professional journalists, authors and scholars find the subject notable enough to study it and disseminate information on it.  What you're asking us is to disregard the opinions of professionals and experts on what's notable, and substitute yours.  What I don't see is why we should do this. Wily D  12:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not asking this: merely that a line between news and items of more lasting significance be respected. You'll note that I'm rather careful about what I nominate: for instance, even though Bulgarian-German relations is in as bad a state as the others, I do know an actual article can be constructed out of it, so there's zero chance I'll be nominating it for deletion. That is simply not the case with most of what I nominate, however. - Biruitorul Talk 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced in the three months since the article's creation. -- BlueSquadron Raven  22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per WilyD. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is scarcely more than "Thailand-Ukraine relations are the relations between Thailand and the Ukraine." Is this article a joke? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is part of a series of nearly contentless random bilateral relationship articles by, many of which are for nations that don't even have embassies with each other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WilyD. Let the article expand and improve based on those sources, and then reconsider the stance. &mdash; Deckiller 23:06, 6 April 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.