Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovenia–Mexico relations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Any remaining issues can be addressed by editing. Kevin (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia–Mexico relations

[edit]
Slovenia–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the current article is largely based on one 2 day meeting between these countries 6 years ago. I have found little evidence of significant ongoing relations. there is hardly anything in the first 60 results of this search except a state visit 11 years ago [1]. for those that love to barrel scrape and insert factoids, the 2 countries under 23 side played a match 14 years ago...[2], this clearly does not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and can you give significant third party coverage? that is 1 event that was only covered by 1 source. can you tell me how this meets WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Pantherskin (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Article had improving sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another experiment in "watch me do this" by Richard Arthur Norton. No, official visits by Second Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Silly Walks do not constitute the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG. Nor do "sessions of the Mixed Commission for Cooperation in the fields of Education and Culture between the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the Government of the United Mexican States". (Seriously, talk about trivia: that's mind-numbingly boring trivia to boot.) We know thousands of bilateral relations exist; we know states that have relations will engage in all sorts of minor interactions that this encyclopedia would never bother to notice were it not for Richard Arthur Norton's experiment. That doesn't mean we should sanction it, nor does it mean we should keep articles on relations that haven't ever actually been covered as such in any appreciable depth, but are instead a smattering of trivia that happen to have been picked up off the third page of a Google search. (And please, Richard, spare us your theory about the trivial being subjective: trivia is trivia, and agreements on "mutual collaboration in the fields of primary, secondary, post-secondary and higher education; scholarship and residential exchange programmes" are most decidedly trivial.) - Biruitorul Talk 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huh? I didn't create the article, nor have I commented in this discussion so far, why is my name being invoked here? That's kinda weird, don't you think? Justice Potter Stewart in 1974 said he could recognize pornography when he saw it, even if he couldn't define it. The same must be true of trivia. I am sure 35 years later, that just about everyone can describe pornography very well and in great detail. I am sure trivia can be defined to ... if Wikipedia wanted to define it, but it doesn't. I am casting a keep vote. Wikipedia is about notability and verifiability, not importance. Importance is subjective. I may read 10 Wikipedia articles each day and there are 3 million. That makes 3M-10 not important to me. The rest are just trivial concerns of other people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I invoked your name because you were the individual who injected a morass of trivia into the article after it was nominated for deletion. That's all I meant, and my apologies if I happened to imply anything else by mentioning you - I didn't mean to. - Biruitorul Talk 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what makes a fact trivia? Don't invoke it, define it, so everyone can recognize it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. hardly convincing. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so WP:ILIKEIT seems like your updated reasoning... LibStar (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a deletion of this article is quite important for you, because otherwise I have no explanation for your aggressive stance and unconstructive comments here. Pantherskin (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hardly, arguments (or rather votes) with no real reason add no value to the AfD process. I would say the same even if they said "keep, it's notable." LibStar (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duffy2032's opinion that the quality of the article is "decent" is sufficient to qualify as a "reason" to keep.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no it was over months ago. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you guys want to delete this article you should do the same with the hundreds of similar ones. The article is pretty decent and anything in there is neither unsourced, not-notable or whatever wrong you want to find in it.--Scandza (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping an article. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, give LibStar time and they will be nominated too. He has nominated over 100 by my count. This is his second round, to try and delete ones that were saved in the first round. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
remember your friend Groubani created thousands of bilateral stubs... LibStar (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what?!? What is this, guilt by association? Numerous relations articles started by Groubani have been shown to be notable. Even the absence of foreign relations between nation states is notable. Not only that, these AfDs raise the issue that people completely unfamiliar with these countries are passing judgment on their importance, which creates the appearance of xenophobia. There should be a blanket protection for all of these articles since their deletion is completely counterproductive. Period.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about imposing blanket topic bans for these articles on editors who insist on introducing reams of trivia into them in a desperate, bizarre attempt to preserve them, throwing up absurd accusations like xenophobia (?) in the process? That would really move us forward. (By the way, do note how laughable your charge is: the two Slovenes in this discussion both voted to delete.) - Biruitorul Talk 22:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cdogsimmons, your position is obviously clear, you want every single bilateral article kept regardless of lack of evidence of actual significant third party coverage of relations (which is a minimum requirement of WP:N). Consensus has clearly shown that not all bilateral articles are notable so your position that every combination must be protected is not the general view. If you want that, you'll need to get some formal endorsement through WP:SANCTION, so go on make a claim there before whinging your personal opinion that everything must be kept in the hope you'll convince others. Biruitorul makes an excellent point. why are even Slovenians voting delete here? are they unfamiliar with the country of Slovenia? Do you speak for Slovenians? do you live in Slovenia or speak Slovenian? Please answer. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and numerous created by Groubani have been deleted or redirected. you have to say if Groubani spent more time actually developing articles instead of creating 100s of stubs we wouldn't have this mess. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have made my position clear, here, and in numerous other discussions regarding these articles. As have you. Biruitorul, I haven't accused anyone of xenophobia here so I expect a retraction. This course of discussion previously led to a temporary freeze on the deletion of these articles. Obviously that freeze was not enough to effect a civil discussion. LibStar, Here's your answer. I am astounded by your suggestion that the creation of stubs is a bad thing. Whinging? That's my opinion. So I said it again. WP:No Personal Attacks please. Also, I haven't been able to find that discussion where a consensus was found that not all bilateral articles are notable. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out. I suggest taking these issues to a higher forum where they can be resolved, not simply put off to a later date.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD which uses consensus has shown at least 200 of these bilateral articles are not notable. I know you don't like that, but perhaps you want to recreate all these articles and the 100s more that have been redirected. to pretend there are all notable...you have given no policy or guideline stated this. it is simply your strong desire. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any higher forums are necessary as AfDs should continue as normal. because you feel so strongly that every single bilateral must be kept, you need to do this formally via WP:SANCTION. I will abide by any decision made there of WP:ANI but simply because you want me to give up... that will not work. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The countries' relations are notable and have been covered by 3rd party sources. Several state visits have been independently covered and the countries have a free trade agreement in place through the European Union. Slovenia planned to open a consulate in Mexico City this year and also warned its citizens not to travel to Mexico because of the H1N1 virus, both covered by the independent press. A good candidate for expansion. I suggest further investigation in the native languages of the countries for more information. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No policy cited to why this should be deleted. Events described in this article are both sourced and verifiable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovenia–Mexico_relations&oldid=1138773397"