Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Guyana 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 Various. I hate multiple noms, and I hate closing them :) Mostly, this is because the arguments for deleting one article are "inherited" by another that may be sufficiently different. In this case, there is no single policy governing this kind of article, which means that mass nomination complicates, rather than simplifies this process and guarantees only that there will be disappointment for all sides. Nonetheless, that diatribe at an end, the discussion indicates a variety of results.

Finally, can I comment that comments of the variety of "better in another article", "redundant to existing article" etc. suggest an editorial alternative to an AfD - redirects and merges, which can be done without us ending up in these rather complex retention disputes. Can I suggest, before I have to spend another 20 minutes picking another nomination apart, discussing this centrally first rather than coming to the melting pot of AfD? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece-Guyana relations

Greece-Guyana relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm nominating as a batch a few prodded articles that were contested (albeit without reason). Greece has very tenuous relations with all these countries: no embassies in some of them, no historic, cultural or significant political or economic ties with any of them. Where Greek communities exist, separate articles are already in place: Greeks in Uruguay, Greeks in Cuba, Greeks in Panama. Existence of embassies is covered at Diplomatic missions of Greece and at equivalent articles for the other countries. As relations between these pairs does not seem to go beyond mere existence of bilateral ties, the articles should be deleted, per strong recent precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldova–South Korea relations, etc. Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Greek-Palauan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greece–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cuba–Greece relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greek-Panamanian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greece-Turkmenistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Speedy Close - History shows that most of these articles are notable - debating them in batches only makes it impossible to see what's going on. WilyD 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do see recent AfDs, and do present evidence of notability (if there is any), rather than attempting to circumvent the process. AfDs run for five days, which should be plenty of time if any of these are salvageable. - Biruitorul Talk 18:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the recent AFDs have closed as "Keep", or "no consensus". Block voting has been a problem, and trying to hold six seperate discussions on a single page is impossible. Grouping different articles only disrupts our ability to conduct any sensible process. For Greece Guyana, my inability to speak Greek is a problem, though it's fairly clear their relations are notable. In English [1] maybe. In Greek [2] is pretty nice, though it's hard to assess the reliability of a Greek source, not speaking Greek. Rather than disrupting the process by grouping articles that each need seperate considerations, list individual articles so they can be individually discussed. WilyD 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Other smaller discussions exist in English, [3][4]Actually, this is probably the best, itaddresses the WP:N need quite nicely, and so forth. WilyD 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Five days is plenty of time, and even if you've decided these all need AfDs (which is absurd), batching them will help us streamline them as we gradually get rid of this junk. 2) City medals aren't notable: they're purely symbolic and aren't even mentioned in biographies. Now, yes, it's true the Guyanese President visited Greece for three days, but that's news, not encyclopedic material evidencing any sort of meaningful relationship. "Greece has relations with Guyana, and by the way, the President of the latter visited Greece for three days, where he shook hands with his counterpart" - pretty thin gruel there. - Biruitorul Talk 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The general thinking behind WP:N is that we should trust professional editors and publishers' opinions of what's notable over your gut reaction. Although you might think so, leaders of different countries don't just pop by for a beer and some televised sports, and spend half a week getting pissed and oggling chicks (or dudes, as gender and sexual orientation dictates) - it turns out they're often busy and devote their time to affairs of state - when their country has a notable relationship with another one that requires discussion, they go and have meetings - otherwise, not so much. WilyD 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it possible, though, that much of that is in the realm of news and not something of more lasting notability (or significance, if you will)? - Biruitorul Talk 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, I can't know the future, but international relations are typically a subject of enormous historical interest. These seem less likely to depreciate over time than most all our articles. WilyD 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Three Groubani's, one Russian Luxembourger, and a Plumoyr --- and a continuation of the Biruitorul and Wily Show. Although I generally don't like mass nominations, these articles have a common thread of being mass creations by people who do not actually have any interest in whether there is cooperation or conflict between nation A and nation B. Although Greece-Turkey relations would be an obvious keeper, Greek-Turkmenistan would not. It's more of a stretch to find a bilateral relationship between Greece and the South Pacific island of Palau, or with the Latin American nations of Panama, Cuba or Uruguay. I have faith that WilyD can find evidence in some cases, although I'm not sure how much longer he wants to be doing Groubani's homework. Mandsford (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only tried Greece Guyana, because I'd rather we didn't allow Biruitorul to continually create problematic binnings like this. Argentine-Singapore's AFD was a mess because they were bundeled. My guesses? I'm not sure. Greece Palau wouldn't surprise me if it was nonnotable, Greece Cuba would, no guesses on the others. That Greek's use a different alphabet makes finding sources really irritating.
    • For what it's worth, I fuckin' hate doing Groubani's homework, though I like Wikipedia, and between Birutriol and Yillosime, my motivation to write articles is more or less killed - why would I do that when far better parts of the encyclopaedia are under attack, and better articles than I've ever written are getting deleted? It seems so pointless. WilyD 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as these countries have trivial, if any relations with each other. WilyD needs to take his drama elsewhere. There are obviously some relational articles that should be kept, but these are nonsense. Tavix |  Talk  19:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of them. There is no substance here at all, certainly nothing that can't be mentioned in an article on either country, if there is in fact notable diplomatic incidents between them. A list of places Greece has embassies, included in the main Greece article, is sufficient replacement for the content of these articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep how on Earth are we supposed to discuss the notability of so many separate topics in one debate? Hilary T (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Only one of these pairs actually has embassies with each other (Cuba–Greece relations), and that one doesn't appear to be particularly important anyways, going from the reference. (Around $0.7M USD annual trade in each direction, limited tourism, no significant expat communities.) Zetawoof(ζ) 22:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of these pairings meet WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, I've already shown that Greece Guyana meets the WP:N standard. I haven't had time to look into the others, but I'm sure one could find sources for at least some of them. WilyD 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything to support a claim to notability for any of these pairings. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greece and Cuba are, rather unsurprisingly, not hard to establish notability for. [5] + [6] + [7] + [8] + [9] and so forth. Not speaking Greek or Spanish is a definite disadvantage, but they're there if you look. WilyD 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of those appear to focus on Greece/Cuba relations. The second one (Scoop.co.nz) only mentions Greece in passing, the fourth is talking about Cuba's participation in the 2004 Olympics - which were in Greece - and the rest don't mention Greece in the publicly visible summaries. Simply doing a news archive search for "greece cuba" isn't a substitute for actual research. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Edit conflict) Links 5, 7 and 9 say nothing about Greece. Link 6 mentions Greece once, together with Cyprus, Italy, and Portugal, and says nothing substantive. Link 8 tells us Fidel Castro may or may not come to the 2004 Olympics, which, aside from being a pretty minor issue, is also glaringly anachronistic. - Biruitorul Talk 03:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merely lying about the content of sources does not a good argument make. 5 and 7 discuss the relationship between Greece and Cuba, and how Cuba is leveraging that relationship to build a better relationship with the EU. WilyD 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I can't actually see what 5 and 7 are saying about the relationship but I know Biruitorul is a liar so I'm gonna trust Wily here. Hilary T (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, let's try to stay CIVIL here please. Understandably, feelings run high in debates over these articles, but we don't need to be accusing each other of being untruthful, overly dramatic, uninformed, etc. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In disputes of this nature where we are relying on judgements of character it's important that we remember who has been untruthful in the past. Hilary T (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore there would be no reason for feelings to run high if people weren't trying to overwhelm the responsible editors by bundling six different relations in one discussion and not making any effort to look for sources themselves, presumably because they don't even believe in WP:N or simply because they feel themselves to be above such menial tasks. Hilary T (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
or because we wouldn't be able to trust them even if they said they had looked for sources but not found any. Hilary T (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all No indications of any notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This establishes Greece - Panama - same old story - inability to speak Greek or Spanish makes it tough to find additional sources. [11] This, too, at least establishes that multiple independent, reliable sources discuss the relationship in depth. WilyD 13:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most countries take a position on the Republic of Macedonia/FYROM naming dispute. Those positions are handily summarised right over here. If that's all there is to the relationship, we need not keep the present "article", as the information is given elsewhere. - Biruitorul Talk 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These articles are redundant to articles with better organization and more logical scopes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. per everyone above. Yilloslime TC 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Greece-Guyana, Greece-Palauan and Greece-Turkmenistan. Let's first open an Embassy in these countries, and then we can discuss again if we need such an article or not! E.g., he relevant page for the bilateral relations with Guyana in mfa.gr is this. It only mentions that Greece provided Guyana with development aid in 2004. I see no bilateral legal framework. Obviously, not an article which could be regarded as notable enough. With Turkmenistan there are also no bilateral ratified or signed agreements.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But with the other three countries there is a bilateral legal framework, and certain existing bilateral agreements. I will not elaborate in detail for each country (in summary 3 agreements with Uruguay, and 3 with Panama)! But, e.g., concerning the Greek-Cuba article, again per the relevant mfa.gr page, there are five bilateral agreements (Cultural, Protection of Investments, Economic and Technological Co-operation, Air Transport Memorandum, and memorandum for the Co-operation of the two mfas). Not being sure that just a list of bilateral agreements is enough to support a encyclopedic article, for these articles though leaning towards delete, I want to let you judge yourselves if there is any ground to save them.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - There may be sources out there, but these articles must stand on their own merits, and at present have none. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary: If I were the administrator, I would ignore comments like "delete all" and "keep all"; there are six articles nominated, and if these are to be judged on their own merits, there's no voting a straight ticket. Simply agreeing with the Bir or with Wily doesn't mean much as far as I'm concerned. In looking over what I think is the the strongest source cited in favor of each article (Wily might disagree), I see:
Greece-Guyana relations-- four sources found, President on tour; Athens Mayor presents City Medal to Guyanese President
Greek-Palauan relations-- none found
Greece–Uruguay relations-- none found
Cuba–Greece relations -- five found; Greece mulling over Fidel Castro visit to Olympic Games
Greek-Panamanian relations --- two found; FM meets Panamanian envoy and Greece pressures Panama's Ambassador
Greece-Turkmenistan relations-- none found
Based on that I'd say (easily) delete Greece-Palau, Greece-Uruguay and Greece-Turkmenistan. Keep Greece-Panama; and although I appreciate that WilyD has looked for references, I don't see the notability with Greece-Guyana or with Cuba-Greece, so delete for that. Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 8 April 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.