| Revision as of 08:01, 1 April 2009 editNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,130 edits →Romania–Singapore relations: delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:28, 1 April 2009 edit undoHilary T (talk | contribs)296 edits →Romania–Singapore relations: keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| *Regarding bilateral trade: the US (officially) has ''zero'' trade with North Korea, Cuba and Iran, but of course those relations are highly notable, more for their adversity than anything else. I'm sure, though, one can find a handful of US-X relations where very little trade occurs and where one could claim a lack of notability based on that and the absence of other notability-creating factors. ], ] (the Netherlands Antilles aren't even a state, so that really should go), ] come to mind. - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | *Regarding bilateral trade: the US (officially) has ''zero'' trade with North Korea, Cuba and Iran, but of course those relations are highly notable, more for their adversity than anything else. I'm sure, though, one can find a handful of US-X relations where very little trade occurs and where one could claim a lack of notability based on that and the absence of other notability-creating factors. ], ] (the Netherlands Antilles aren't even a state, so that really should go), ] come to mind. - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. Notability isn't inherited from brief visits from senior politicians or generated by tiny amounts of trade. In-depth sourcing is needed to meet ], and that's not the case here. ] (]) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. Notability isn't inherited from brief visits from senior politicians or generated by tiny amounts of trade. In-depth sourcing is needed to meet ], and that's not the case here. ] (]) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', your personal opinion of whether these things are notable or not is irrelevant because they have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources so tough luck. ] (]) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:28, 1 April 2009
Romania–Singapore relations
- Romania–Singapore relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Only reason given was "rm silliness." One side doesn't even have an embassy. No real relations of which to speak. Jd027 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:N--I could not find non-trivial coverage of this topic in independent secondary sources. Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example this, this, this, this, this, etc. Yilloslime C 16:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Easy keep - the only way to not find nontrivial coverage in independent secondary sources is to avoid looking. and so forth. WilyD 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Those articles are indeed independent and secondary, but they're coverage of the topic of international relations between Romania and Singapore is trivial at best. Yilloslime C 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - a one-day visit by Romania's President on a five-country tour 7 years ago doesn't give us much to write an article about. Also, both countries have GDPs of well over $200 billion, so $15 million in trade is a drop in the bucket. Other than that, this is the typical no-content, non-notable bilateral relations article, and should be deleted as such. - Biruitorul 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason that I used in the Romania-Uzbekistan deletion debate, replacing "Uzbekistan" with "Singapore". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep with the addition of the news items referenced by Wily D. Although I understand the drop in the bucket argument (15 mil is less than 1/1000th of $200 billion) I cannot imagine, by analogy, that we would delete any of the articles on "United States and ______ relations" by comparing amount of trade to the combined GDP's of the U.S. and the other nation. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I'm tired of repeating myself, but the same arguments I emphasized in about ten identical precedents so far should also apply here. Dahn (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Good work by WillyD to find the sources. A Presidential visit is a big deal in the diplomatic world, even if he visited other countries at the same time, and the trade is significant if not enormous. Cool3 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. WilyD's saved it, I think.—S Marshall /Cont 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep WilyD to the rescue, confirming notability (though someone should put the references in the article). Pastor Theo (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - world leaders love to travel. Yes, state visits make the news, but they're not evidence of particular importance in a relationship. Nothing indicates that President Iliescu did anything more in Singapore than shake a few hands, sit down for a dinner, and sign a few pieces of paper affecting very few citizens of either country. Note especially that in the seven years since the visit, nothing newsworthy has happened regarding the relationship. (Well, Loredana Groza did sing there in 2007 to commemorate 40 years of relations, before the French, American, British, Saudi and other ambassadors, and kicked off a "Romanian month", but after all, the embassy does have to do something to justify its existence.) So I continue to argue that one visit, even by a head of state, doesn't do much to change the equation.
- Regarding bilateral trade: the US (officially) has zero trade with North Korea, Cuba and Iran, but of course those relations are highly notable, more for their adversity than anything else. I'm sure, though, one can find a handful of US-X relations where very little trade occurs and where one could claim a lack of notability based on that and the absence of other notability-creating factors. São Tomé and Príncipe – United States relations, Netherlands Antilles – United States relations (the Netherlands Antilles aren't even a state, so that really should go), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – United States relations come to mind. - Biruitorul 04:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Notability isn't inherited from brief visits from senior politicians or generated by tiny amounts of trade. In-depth sourcing is needed to meet WP:N, and that's not the case here. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, your personal opinion of whether these things are notable or not is irrelevant because they have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources so tough luck. Hilary T (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)