Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Estonia relations (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 am very tired of closing these - however, there is no consensus here for anything Fritzpoll (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Estonia relations

edit
AfDs for this article:
Chile–Estonia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I read through the first AfD and noted the keep votes really didn't come up with significant reliable sources to establish notability. non resident embassies. a google news search shows only multilateral not bilateral relations [1], which I suspect happens a lot in the Chile-EU context. the point of trade was raised in the first AfD, but someone importantly said "in 2007 Estonia imported $US 16.23 billion worth of goods and services and exported $US 13.16 billion. As such, EUR 6 million is a tiny proportion of the country's trade and, not surprisingly, Chile isn't listed as being one of Estonia's main trading partners". that Chile is one of Estonia's main trading partners in South America is not surprising, given that the top 3 for almost all European and Asian countries is Brazil, Argentina and Chile (in differing orders). I also note that only 1 actual agreement on visas (+ memo of understanding) has been signed between the countries. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Specific dollar amounts aren't important or not important. Steve Jobs makes $1 a year at Apple. The amount is important if it is reported in reliable media, the media thought is was important enough to record. That is the definition of notability, not some arbitrary cut off point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hasn't been reported in reliable media either. given that other bilateral articles have been deleted where countries traded, you'll need a stronger argument than that. a significant trade relationship would be an automatic qualification for notable relations in my opinion. there's still a real lack of third party coverage of these 2 countries. and Steve Jobs gets significant coverage for his role at Apple unlike this bilateral pairing. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Norton, comparing trade amounts to a token salary received by Steve Jobs is inappropriate. Steve Jobs owns hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of stock in Apple so as an owner he is in essence working for himself. Why don't you compare Chile/Estonia trade to the amount of Steve Job's stake in Disney or Apple instead of his salary at those corporations? It's just as silly. These smokescreens being thrown up shouldn't distract from the real point that you inadvertently emphasize while trying to discredit it: trade between the two countries is essentially non-existent. Good try though, very creative if a little insulting to your fellow editors' intelligence if you really thought anyone would fall for it. I am trying to assume good faith on your part in making such a specious comparison. Seriously, I am trying. Drawn Some (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These articles that randomly pair nations are getting out of hand. There is no real notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't think it's really productive to have an AFD every 2 months just to see if the article gets deleted. "I read through the first AfD and noted the keep votes really didn't come up with significant reliable sources to establish notability." - I also think it isn't the responsibility of !voters to come up with sources -- they evaluate the article in present state. feydey (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of expansion. No sources indicate these relations are notable. Here is what the article says: They have diplomatic relations, and a visa-free travel agreement, and plans for more; trade occurs; Chile is one of a number of countries to have jointly issued a stamp with Estonia, three Chilean books have been translated into Estonian. These arbitrary facts are fine, but Chile has 15 million people so it's not surprising that some of those people end up doing business in each country of the world. We have to decide: are there to be 18,000 X–Y relations articles with non-notable lists of Google search results? This article fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete significance / notability Stuartyeates (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I would like to believe that all 200 or so countries on Earth have notable bilateral relations with each of the other countries, it just isn't so. This is one instance where the bilateral relations are not notable as they have not received significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Unfortunately the way Wikipedia works is that if purple humanoids lived on the moon and they received only trivial mention and no-in depth coverage in reliable sources they wouldn't be in Wikipedia. If someone has a fundamental disagreement with the principles of this encyclopedia and thinks everything verifiable should be in here then they should start their own encyclopedia and stop trying to subvert the consensus here. After a point it becomes tedious. Drawn Some (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have notified User:Martintg and User:Digwuren of this discussion per WP:CIVIL since they contributed significantly to the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is wrong that only multilateral relations exist. Chile and Estonia have a bilateral agreement in place regarding the visa free travel. The creation of the agreement was notable and was covered by independent media (here's the BBC). The two countries also have in force a Memorandum on co-operation between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and are preparing the following draft agreements:
  • Agreement on culture, education and science related co-operation;
  • Agreement on tourism related co-operation;
  • Agreement on information technology related co-operation.[2]

This is a notable relationship under wikipedia's Afd standards at WP:N.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the BBC article I mention above shows the existence of relations? As for the previous Afds you mention, could you clarify which ones (so we can restore the articles that apparently were deleted despite being adequately sourced).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see all 204 words of that article, but if the 73 that are freely available are any indication, the article simply notes that agreement for via free travel came into effect that day, and then lists the other 45 countries that Estonia had visa-free agreements with at the time. I would not call this "significant coverage" of Chile-Estonia relations. Yilloslime TC 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cdogsimmons: We know the relations exist (Chile has over 15 million people so it's likely there will be some kind of relation between Chile and every other country). I have not seen you address the issue of WP:N which requires articles to cover notable topics. A Google search for chile "polar bear" gives 178,000 hits – does that mean we need Chile – Polar bear relations? Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a disagreement on the term "significant coverage" as used in the notability guidelines. To me, coverage of these relations (that we both agree exist) by the BBC equals significant coverage. The fact that there are many precedents for international relations articles on Wikipedia also tells me that this article isn't an anomaly (like a certain country's policy toward a certain species might be, separate from the article about that species). This article has independent sources that refer to the relationship, which I think are significant. Some people think the relations between these nation states are "trivial" and we can disagree.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.' The little article in question does not do that. Yilloslime TC 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the absence of reliable independent sources that discuss the topic of this article in any depth (the topic being Chile-Estonia relations) is dispositive for inclusion (i.e. fails GNG).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the BBC article cited above? That discusses a bilateral treaty in depth. You don't think that qualifies as covering "Chile-Estonia relations"?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this was nominated for deletion just two months ago and the result was "Keep". It is a bit to disruptive to renominate an article for deletion every second month. The article was judged sufficiently notable then, what has changed since then. The joint stamp issue, the high level meetings and the fact Chile is Estonia's biggest trading partner makes this relationship notable. --Martintg (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
joint stamp issue is a measure of notable relations? the fact Chile is Estonia's biggest trading partner is clearly incorrect and original research on your part. According to the CIA World Factbook, Estonia's biggest traders in terms of exports is Finland 17.9%, Sweden 13.2%, Latvia 11.4%, Russia 8.9%, Lithuania 5.8%, Germany 5.2%, US 4.1% (2007) and for imports Finland 15.9%, Germany 12.8%, Sweden 10.1%, Russia 10%, Latvia 7.6%, Lithuania 6.9%, Poland 4.5% (2007). Please don't make up info to back an argument. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say Chile is Estonia's largest trading partner on the South American continent. It is a fact that Chilean wines dominate the Estonian market, which is notable given the fact of Estonia's EU membership and EU wine lake. The joint stamp issue was certainly notable enough to be covered in the Estonian media. Both of these were discussed in the previous AfD. --Martintg (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see my original comment Chile isn't listed as being one of Estonia's main trading partners". that Chile is one of Estonia's main trading partners in South America is not surprising, given that the top 3 for almost all European and Asian countries is Brazil, Argentina and Chile (in differing orders).LibStar (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak and non-notable relationship without direct diplomatic representation through resident ambassadors. Fails notability due to lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant discussion of the bilateral relationship as such, rather there are just websites of the countries (nonindependent sources), and a few random news items showing that the two countries are not totally isolated. Edison (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unremarkable relationship with no third-party coverage of the topic of the article to back up any claim of notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is something I cut and pasted from the previous AfD discussion: There is coverage in the media of the Chile-Estonian relations, both print and TV. For example, the joint stamp issue event attended by the Chilean ambassador in the press and TV, significant trade in chilen wine dominating the Estonian market, the meeting between the Estonian PM and the Chilean President, Estonian opposition leader and major of Tallinn Edgar Savisaar meeting with the Chilean ambassador as well as various bi-lateral agreements in preparation or in force, such as a visa free travel agreement. Martintg (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Martintg (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that such topics aren't notable, for instance, there is an article on Chilean wine. But the topic of Chile-Estonia relations isn't notable and can't be inherited from such topics. We need significant in-depth coverage of the actual subject, the relation itself, in independent reliable sources, to write an article about it without pure WP:SYNTHESIS. Drawn Some (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is no trade agreements between these 2 countries. simply having treaties and visa free travel is not necessarily an indicator of notability, Australians and NZers can travel to the whole of the EU visa free, does that mean NZ-Luxembourg and Australia-Luxembourg is notable? LibStar (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relations exist; verifiable sources are given; as for notability, that, as has been established by the outcomes of the most recent hundred or so bilateral relations AfDs, is in the eye of the beholder. Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, June 11, 2009 (UTC)
    • "notability is in the eye of the beholder" is not a valid keep argument. Yilloslime TC 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should not be deleting articles left and right if we can't agree on whether the subject they cover is notable or not. Based on numerous previous outcomes of similar AfDs, there is no consensus whether this type of information is notable, hence notability issues cannot be used as an AfD rationale, hence the statement that "notability is in the eye of the beholder" is, in this context, a perfectly valid 'keep' argument.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:44, June 11, 2009 (UTC)
        • 1. As point of fact, most of the articles that have gone thru AfD have been deleted, and many have ended as no consensus. Only a minority have AfDs have been closed as Keep. 2. You could just as easily argue that if we can't agree on whether the subject they cover is notable or not we then we shouldn't be (or shouldn't have been) creating these articles left and right. 3. You're statement that "...notability issues cannot be used as an AfD rationale..." is non-sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that since there's no consensus on what constitutes a notable X-Y relation, then you are just always going to vote keep. Sorry, but I don't see how that approach is going to help us find consensus. What we all should be doing is looking at each AfD individually, and deciding whether we think the topic is notable, and !voting accordingly. There's bound to still be a ton of disagreement, and plenty of these discussion will be still be closed as "no consensus", but there's at least chance that some sort or rough consensus on what constitutes a notable relation will emerge. But only if people stop !voting keep or delete reflexively. FWIW, while I have generally !voted delete, I have on occasion voted to keep some these. I when I was PRODing articles, there were dozens that I considered PRODing or AfDing and didn't, and if any of these came up of AfD I'd say keep. Yilloslime TC 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Yiloslime, as someone who has nominated a lot of bilateral AfDs, I can tell Ezhiki that most end up deleted. In fact at least 200 have been deleted in the last 2 months, if Ezhiki disagrees request a deletion review. I don't doubt that these 2 countries have a relationship but they don't have a notable relationship and the fact that you can't provide evidence of significant coverage just proves it to me. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me address the issues at hand one by one:
1. I don't have such a vast experience with these AfDs, so I'll take your folks' word that many such articles got deleted. However, my "keep" rationale is based not only on previously kept articles (which, according to you, are "a minority"), but also on those kept due to no consensus (which, according to you, are "many"). The no-consensus outcomes illustrate my point exactly—if there are "many" of them, then the issue of notability is far, far from being clear-cut. We should not continue to delete these articles left and right until the notability issue is resolved (previous AfDs clearly did not resolve it).
2. I, as a matter of fact, agree with this item. Note that I have not created a single one of these articles. Even if they were mass-created in the past, the creator(s) surely considered the subject to be notable, and on the notability factor, I refer you back to item #1.
3. [Y]ou seem to be arguing that since there's no consensus on what constitutes a notable X-Y relation, then you are just always going to vote keep. I am going to always vote keep if, and only if, I consider the subject to be notable or at least worth discussing first. An AfD is not a bad place for a discussion, but in these particular cases we have a great number of similar articles, with 99% of their AfD being hotly discussed. Back to item #1.
[W]hile I have generally !voted delete, I have on occasion voted to keep some these. Same here, only in reverse. I do not vote "keep" for articles which obviously have no potential. Most of them, in my opinion, do have it. The difference between you and me on this point is that you seem to AfD the articles for which you cannot find any sources, while I tend to !keep the articles on which, based on summary background research, I believe the sources can be found (but not necessarily by you or me).
In response to LibStar, it's not that these two countries don't have a notable relation; they have a relation which is notable but not very high-profile. Once again, you seem to be mixing the issues of notability and relative importance. Not the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:13, June 12, 2009 (UTC)
but it lacks significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And look to noms pattern of AfD these bilateral relations article. They stopped themself from nomming this one on May 2 but y'know two months is OK although all these articles are a turf battle and nothing has degraded this article and in fact it has improved since the last AfD. I'm sorry but that certainly seems disruptive to me. -- Banjeboi 20:42, 13 June 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/Chile–Estonia_relations_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1086370632"