Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldova–Spain relations: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:34, 1 June 2009

Moldova–Spain relations

another random combination. the article is largely uncited and contains trivial coverage. almost all Moldova-spain relations is in a Moldova-EU context. and very little coverage of actual bilateral relations [1]. LibStar (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non encyclopedic article with no sources or references. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I count over 10 sources now used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure synthesis. Non-notable subject, lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The minimal bilateral trade and relations appear unimportant to these two countries. Drawn Some (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the relationship is notable enough for the BBC to repost Moldavia news sources on their International News site on diplomacy, and there are multiple news sources on Spain's effort to mediate the Transnistrian conflict and on Spain's energy company that bought part of Moldova's energy distribution network. Remember the topic isn't only about diplomacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drawn Some Bulldog123 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and directory. Also per Drawn Some. Edison (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real bilateral? No article. Collect (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of bilateral relations is established by the existence of bilateral treaties. Contains at least cursory sources which could be expanded. Obviously, the bilateral relations between countries with bilateral treaties is a notable subject.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no there have been bilateral articles with minor agreements that have been deleted. If there is substantial third party coverage of these agreements then perhaps there is notability. One of the agreements is "Highway International Transport" I don't know how that works given that they don't share land borders and driving from Spain to Moldova...well that's a massive distance on roads of other countries.LibStar (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, such articles should be restored. But of course, you are using an argument under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which I think you previously said doesn't apply in these situations here). Of course, that's just an essay and not wikipedia policy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in that case I was referring to you stating Ethiopia Qatar relations for other stuff existing. If you believe articles should be restored then request deletion review. please explain to me how this highway international transport agreement would work? I've only seen it between countries with a land boundary or within the EU (as EU requires common motoring standards). LibStar (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better. Verifiable and notable, surprisingly well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and lacking citations from reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the ref tag is for, not AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I count over 10 sources now used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually the absence of reliable independent sources that discuss the topic is in fact a reason to take something to AfD.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from being started by a banned activist and being dreadfully boring ("This guy met with this other guy. Then some other guy met a bunch of other guys. Then this guy..."), there really isn't anything substantive here. A few millions in trade, a couple of pieces of paper signed (and no, Cdogsimmons, WP:PSTS isn't thrown out the window here; we still require secondary sources to validate the importance of those documents), no embassies, and, conspicuously, no third-party sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above and beyond any presumption of inherent notability for such articles, the sources present in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be unfamiliar with WP:GNG, which requires sources "independent of the subject"; Spanish-government sources cannot be used to validate the notability of activities of the Spanish government. Moreover, as the present article is a direct translation of p. 23 ff. of the linked PDF, it's also a copyvio, and thus liable to speedy deletion. Actually, thanks for giving me that idea - I'll tag forthwith. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any depth, regardless of how much can be written about non-notable primary documents and raw data dumps. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Moldova for "Spain" shows that Spain is one of seven countries where Moldovans have sought work. Searching Spain for "Moldova" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Heroic efforts have attempted to rescue this article. However, I believe those efforts are fundamentally misguided because the result is simply a list of various non-notable events: In September 2000, two people met; in November, someone traveled to Moldova; in 2005 a Spanish ambassador visited Moldova, and more. In any other article, we would ask for a secondary source that indicates the events are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were another one of Groubani's spastic creations, I might feel differently, but this was started by an editor (User:Moldopodo) whose field of interest is topics involving the Republic of Moldova. The original reason for looking at notability was to see whether some of the Groubani stubs had potential for expansion, and we've gotten rid of a lot of stubs that had been mass-produced. I don't view notability as a judgment about whether an editor's nation of interest is big enough. Although I have a great deal of respect for Biru, I certainly don't agree with the suggestions of a copyvio or a speedy delete. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a direct translation of a spanish government document. Who cares who created the article? The topic isn't covered by reliable sources independent of the subject. Just to note (not that anyone cares anymore) some canvassing going on here [2] [3][4] [5].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." I have requested help in research in article space, I have made no effort to direct people to discussions taking place in Wikipedia meta space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that nobody cares anymore -- you cared enough to share some of my talk page with everyone else. But there's a difference between "canvassing", and asking someone whether they can suggest improvements for a particular article. Mandsford (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the message as sent was a request for "help" but one need only look at those sought after for help. Editors with some great interest in spain or moldova? Or a group of editors who vote "keep" more or less without fail on this class of afds? And what was your response to the request for sourcing help? To come and make a keep argument based on the article "not having been written by groubani." I wrote "not that anyone cares" because it appears the canvassing restrictions aren't enforeced anymore. I think they should be, but understand that's a minority position now.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"editors who vote "keep" more or less without fail on this class of afds"? You don't know me too well. Mandsford (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People would ask you to help find references if you had a history of contributing to these articles, I only see you on the AFD pages, I don't see you contributing to the article space except to add a delete tag. You only contribute to the deletion effort, I haven't seen you adding sources to these articles. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonesense. I wrote Australia-East Timor relations which is an actually notable bilateral relationship supported as an encyclopedia article by multiple reliable sources independent of the two nations. I definitely don't vote to keep articles that are absent reliable, independent sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologize, you did participate in one, with your last entry before today on May 14, 2009. I count at least 10 delete votes in the two weeks since you added info to the Bali article. It is not one that I contributed to, so not on my watch list. The first page of your user contribution list is almost exclusively participating in AFD votes. I think any reasonable person would assume your are not a person to contact when requesting help in doing research, but would be a good person to contact for participation in an AFD debate. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask to be contacted and I don't want to be contacted. I noted the canvassing in the hopes that it would stop. Yes, the vast majority of these bilateral articles are non-notable in my opinion (an opinion supported by the paucity of reliable sources, as in this case). Again, my complaint about your canvassing is not that you failed to canvass me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, I have two points to make. First, the article text is actually a direct translation of the linked Spanish government document. That says "copyvio" to me. Second, while Moldopodo was indeed interested in Moldova, this link may give you a hint as to the nature of that interest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of Moldopodo's indefinite block (kind of a Modopodo-no-go) and I appreciate that you brought it to my attention; as stated, I respect your concerns about a possible copyvio -- I hate plagiarism-- but the factors of attribution of the source, uncertainty about whether its copyrighted, and the use of a machine translation would offset that. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." I have requested help in research in article space, I have made no effort to direct people to discussions taking place in Wikipedia meta space. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines before referring to them, so you are more familiar with the concepts involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're playing the fool. So be it.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please behave. There is no need to make personal attacks on me even if you do not like my contributions to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the sources are actually looked into they show very little relationship between the two countries. The mentions are incredibly brief, that may serve for purposes of verifiability, but not notability (multiple reliable sources talking about the subject matter in depth). The article at present is also quite deceptive in the manner it which it synthesises information from the sources. For instance, from the lead, there are 3 sources to back up the claim that Spain is a mediator in the Transnistrian dispute, but none of the sources actually say this. These trumped up claims of notability make the article unreliable. (I know this isn't totally relevant to the AfD discussion, but a cursory glance of the article without checking the sources may give an incorrect impression of the relations between the countries which are pretty insignificant). Quantpole (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was asked earlier today if I could help source this, but I think it unnecessary, for I think it already adequately sourced to show notability. I find it strange that people do not realize that the establishment of relations between counties, are enough good sources already What is needed is an explanation that countries establish diplomatic relations for a purpose--its a Big Deal. If they do it, it implies that both of them thing that there are significant relations between them, enough to justify the trouble and expense. The formal relationship between these two countries is rather new, but that does not mean it is un-notable. The article goes on to discuss some of the actual matters that made the formal relations appropriate. The article would be justified by the economic relations alone, and they are fully explained in the article. If one country makes significant investments in another, there are significant relations between them. That's the very meaning of the words "significant" and :relations"! I admit i was not happy initially with the thought that most of these pairs could be justified this way, but so they can. The only actual argument is that it would mean a great many articles, but thats what we're here for. It's a positive, not a negative, indication. If we come to realize we can do 10 or 20 thousand articles we hadn't realized were significant, that's actually an excellent thing. I look forward to many more of them. The idea that we're running out of topics is disproven, unless there are people who think we ought to limit the number of topics. I'm reluctant to think there are, for I thought we all realized the implications of NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 ::Please behave. There is no need to make personal attacks on me even if you do not like my contributions to Wikipedia. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. When the sources are actually looked into they show very little relationship between the two countries. The mentions are incredibly brief, that may serve for purposes of verifiability, but not notability (multiple reliable sources talking about the subject matter in depth). The article at present is also quite deceptive in the manner it which it synthesises information from the sources. For instance, from the lead, there are 3 sources to back up the claim that Spain is a mediator in the Transnistrian dispute, but none of the sources actually say this. These trumped up claims of notability make the article unreliable. (I know this isn't totally relevant to the AfD discussion, but a cursory glance of the article without checking the sources may give an incorrect impression of the relations between the countries which are pretty insignificant). [[User:Quantpole|Quantpole]] ([[User talk:Quantpole|talk]]) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' I was asked earlier today if I could help source this, but I  think it unnecessary, for I think it already adequately sourced to show notability.    I find it strange that people do not realize that the establishment of relations between counties,  are enough good sources already What is needed is an explanation that countries establish diplomatic relations for a purpose--its a Big Deal. If they do it, it implies that both of them thing that there are significant relations between them, enough to justify the trouble and expense. The formal relationship between these two countries is rather new, but that does not mean it is un-notable. The article goes on to discuss some of the actual matters that made the formal relations appropriate. The article would be justified by the economic relations alone, and they are fully explained in the article.  If one country makes significant investments in another, there are significant relations between them. That's the very meaning of the words "significant" and :relations"! I admit i was not happy initially with the thought that most   of these pairs could be justified this way, but so they can. The only actual argument is that it would mean a great many articles, but thats what we're here for. It's a positive, not a negative, indication. If we come to realize we can do 10 or 20 thousand articles we hadn't realized were significant, that's actually an excellent thing. I look forward to many more of them. The idea that we're running out of topics is disproven, unless  there are people who think we ought to limit the number of topics. I'm reluctant to think there are, for I thought   we all realized the implications of  NOT PAPER. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)