Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Greece/2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Greece [ edit · changes ]
Project pages
Related pages
Article alerts

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 29 Nov 2024 – Katepanikion (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Chidgk1 (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
  • 25 Nov 2024 – Giannis Agouris (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by LibStar (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
  • 21 Nov 2024 – List of heirs to the Greek throne (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Celia Homeford (t · c); see discussion (8 participants; relisted)
  • 12 Nov 2024 – Hatzichristos (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by JMWt (t · c) was closed as delete by Just Step Sideways (t · c) on 26 Nov 2024; see discussion (2 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(2 more...)
Article statistics

This list is generated automatically every night around 10 PM EST.
view full worklist

Greek articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 15 32 45 1 96
FL 1 1 1 22 25
A 2 9 16 1 28
GA 9 41 104 290 21 465
B 44 160 330 628 106 1,268
C 38 228 537 1,783 409 2,995
Start 39 409 1,819 10,061 1 1,868 14,197
Stub 1 57 711 10,540 17 3,820 15,146
List 4 14 101 675 76 322 1,192
Category 2 13,146 13,148
Disambig 325 325
File 578 578
Redirect 12 78 520 938 1,548
Template 1,366 1,366
NA 2 66 68
Other 2 53 55
Assessed 139 939 3,722 24,586 16,566 6,548 52,500
Unassessed 1 7 1 544 553
Total 139 939 3,723 24,593 16,567 7,092 53,053
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 178,514 Ω = 5.22

Archived discussions

[edit]
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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Peru relations

[edit]
Greece–Peru relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Peru. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [1] , [2] , [3], [4], [5] . LibStar (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And oddly if the argument is valid it should be used wherever it is valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. There's a primary source in the article from the greece foreign ministry, a primary source from a greek battery manufacturer that the peruvian navy had bought its batteries, and a reliable source that says a greek online gambling company bought a peruvian online gambling company. There are no reliable sources about this supposed bilateral relationship. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 11 May 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.
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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Venezuela relations

[edit]
Greece–Venezuela relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Venezuela. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this seems like a WP:USEFUL argument. see WP:NOT as well. LibStar ([[User [talk:LibStar|talk]]) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong with that? Biruitorul, LibStar, and BlueSquadronRaven all vote in lockstep. Why is my information less valid because I am consistent with it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well I know at least Biruitorul and I never use the same text on every single AfD and almost always provide reasons. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, I, for one, will not be debating the merits of your argument any further. Any closing admin with a brain in his head will see that your non-sequitor of a rationale for keeping this article doesn't address any concerns about its lack of notability, nor any other failings of it compared to any other policy or guideline. You can call wikipedia William Shatner's toupee from now on, for all I care, it won't change it. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou (talk) 23:24, 10 May 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.
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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Denmark

[edit]
Greeks in Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:N 2 google news searches couldn't find significant coverage [14] [15] LibStar (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's the added content, not the references, that is important and makes the subject notable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an article has references which address its topic, but little content, it is a WP:STUB; it can always be expanded on the basis of the references by anyone who can read. But if there don't exist any non-trivial references about the topic of an article, then by definition all of its content is WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:TRIVIA, etc. This is precisely what notability means. cab (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:ILIKEIT LibStar (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then let's search for a reasoning it will be better for you: the article is cited; presents the history of the Greek community in Denmark in an interesting way; it has a certain historical background; it has sources. Well, it is stub; and what with that? Do we expel stubs for Wikipedia? I thus believe it is cited, well-referenced and it should stay.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing reasons for your vote. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 7 May 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.
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 to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Brazilian relations

[edit]
Greco-Brazilian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Brazil. The diaspora group has its own article - Greeks in Brazil. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [16] , [17], [18] , [19], [20] , [21] LibStar (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you expect my argument to be any different here or any of the other articles? It is just as equally valid here and at the other postings. 1 + 1 will still equal 2, here or anywhere else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're also not a directory, and multiple, independent sources are still required. No policy presumes bilateral relations to be notable, and in any case, the salient fact - embassies - is recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece & of Brazil. -

Biruitorul Talk 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A telephone book is a directory. This is a stub written in prose. Almanac entries don't require the same notability as articles. They just need to be true. All township entries require, is that they exist, and the census data is piped in, just like these articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems reasonably notable, especially with the "high-level contacts" section. With more information on their relations developing in the coming years, this article has the potential to grow. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The coming years" don't concern us; we're not a crystal ball. What does exist comes from primary sources, which breaches WP:GNG. Also, foreign ministers visit each other literally every week of every year; it's not that unusual, and it's news we'd never think of recording outside this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul Talk 02:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP:PRIMARY, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Many of the claims using primary sources within this article are just plain facts, so long as no one makes any exceptional claim then the source can be used. For instance when a primary source gives a known fact, such as "Greece has an Embassy in Brasilia" that is a fact so the primary source can be used. According to WP:PG, "If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, then the policy should in most cases take precedence over the guideline." this means that in some (but not all) cases WP:GNG may be outweighed by WP:V. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 11 May 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.
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Mexico relations

[edit]
Greece–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Mexico. The diaspora group has its own article - Greek Mexican. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [22] , [23] ,[24] , [25], [26] [27] LibStar (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing a directory with an almanac entry. A telephone book is a directory, an almanac is written in prose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First we're an encyclopedia, then an almanac, now a work of prose. Anyone else as confused as I am? --BlueSquadronRaven 04:47, 8 May 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.
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Greece relations

[edit]
Argentina–Greece relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Argentina. The diaspora group has its own article - Greeks in Argentina. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is o.k. to use self-published sources for some information if there is no reasonable doubt about authenticity, presumably the case here. But the article should mostly be based on independent sources, and only independent sources can establish notability. As it stands, this one is marginal. Just one deputy-minister meeting noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we are an almanac-like reference work, and this is an almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bite... please show me where, anywhere, on wikipedia that it says this is an almanac. I could use a giggle this morning. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A rose by any other name .... Wikipedia is a "reference work" not an encyclopedia. My Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't contain charts, graphs and pages of statistics and rankings, but my almanac does. My EB doesn't list every city in the world, yet both my gazetteer and atlas do. My EB doesn't contain plot summaries for movies and TV shows, yet my Leonard Maltin guide does. Wikipedia expanded from being a traditional encyclopedia, and became a hybrid "reference work" many years ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for your definition, I asked you to point out where this was called an almanac, which you failed to do. Think of it what you will in your own mind but don't try and foist that opinion on the rest of us. This article still fails all standards for inclusion. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Yannismarou (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll assume you are a newbie here and try to help you get started with understanding Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Five_pillars says in the very first line: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Did you "[get your] giggle this morning", or laugh so hard you became incontinent? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While tacit, it is still both accurate and true. Can you show me where it says that almanac entries are banned from Wikipedia? Tonwnship entries only require that they exist, and only used primary census data when they were created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "almanac" argument is nothing but a red herring. Even if we assume that Wikipedia, as a unique reference work, should include almanac-type entries, one still needs to establish the notability of the specific entry under consideration to decide whether it should be included or not. There are currently about 193 nations in the world, so unless you are asserting that the 37,056 articles on bilateral relations between them are automatically notable, some evidence needs to be presented that each specific relationship is notable enough to warrant an article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since all the primary sourced puff fails to establish that this relationship is a notable topic, and due to my own failure to find multiple reliable sources that discuss this relationsihp in a way that might help to make it notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are "Argentina-Greece" relations the same thing as "Greece-Argentina" relations? Maybe we should have both article just to be sure who's on top? Per above. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its in alphabetical order. Dream Focus 17:38, 9 May 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.
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Greece relations

[edit]
Colombia–Greece relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've done searches for all these pairs; it seems Greek relations with Latin America are, in general, routine and have not been the subject of significant coverage, either in news articles or books. The presence of embassies is already noted at Diplomatic missions of Greece (and the equivalent pages). Where noteworthy, the Greek diasporas already have pages: Greeks in Argentina, Greeks in Brazil, Greek Mexican. Other than that, there isn't much to see here. If someone does find significant coverage for one or more of these pairings, I'll be glad to strike them out as that happens. Biruitorul Talk 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Argentina–Greece relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greco-Brazilian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greece–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greece–Peru relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greece–Venezuela relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Question Biruitorul, of the several pairing articles you have put up for deletion, have you ever struck an entry or closed any deletion debate on these country pairings which you have opened? Ikip (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, and I will be happy to strike pairings if and when significant coverage is found. - Biruitorul Talk 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does, if the "significant coverage" bar is completly unattainable. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless we throw WP:GNG out the window, deletion (or at best merging (not that there's much to merge) or redirecting) is the solution. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If any AFD shows that no source will ever be considered "significant coverage" by Biruitorul it is this response to the 36 references provided by User:WilyD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations. There are no amount of refences which will ever be signifigant enough for Biruitorul. 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not on the contributor. No independent significant coverage has been demonstrated, and no amount of filibustering will change that. - Biruitorul Talk 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have brought it up, unless you would stated what you did in the last sentence. I suggest striking it, since there is no amount of sources which will be signifigant enough. thanks. Ikip (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip, you've done more than enough smear campaigning and assuming bad faith around here, find a rational argument or be quiet. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember the train wreck last time these kind of lists were bundled? Even if someone thinks that all but one should be deleted it really complicates things. I know people can investigate six articles in a week, but that is besides the point; usually some are more notable than others. Tavix |  Talk  23:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Romania relations worked just fine. Look, I understand why bundles of 20 might be too much to stomach, or why bundles of half a dozen involving completely disparate countries may be a problem, but I really don't think it's that hard to assess the notability of the relations of Greece (population 11 million) with 6 countries on the opposite side of the world, with which it has very little in common. I've said why the embassy argument is a red herring; the lack of significant coverage (unless that turns up) simply means we should delete these. - Biruitorul Talk 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this discussion is now solely for Colombia-Greece; the other pairs have their own AfDs. - Biruitorul Talk 06:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Having embassies would imply that other sources do exist - proof of an extensive effort to find sources failing is needed, imo.YobMod 10:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of secondary sources, references and content after a year of this article being here is insufficient for this? --BlueSquadronRaven 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imo, yes. Many of these articles are created in a stub-creation-spree, so the lack of citations is usually due to no-one having done a good enough search. As most of the sources can be assumed to be in non-English languages, a google search is not sufficient; unless Greek editor makes a concerted effort to find sources and fails, i think the sources are to be found, and just need time.YobMod 08:41, 7 May 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.
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Soumpouros

[edit]
Michael Soumpouros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, only known for one event. Prod was removed by anonymous IP with only that single edit. References provided do not indicate any notability. Google gives only one hit for "Michael Soumpouros": this very article. Crusio (talk) 21:08, 5 May 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.
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Kyrgyzstan

[edit]
Greeks in Kyrgyzstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

besides the source listed in the article I've found no other sources relating to this topic. [28] LibStar (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteWikipedia is not a directory listing articles with every bilateral combination of persons from country X who live in country Y. A few incidentals in newspapers does not establish that such article are encyclopedic, and the references do not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems like another article created for the sake of it. Fails to establish notability. PMK1 (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable statistic. This is not a directory, or the white pages. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I'm really starting to get angry! I don't understand this hasty delete nominations of the Greeks in x or z country nominations! People nominate articles without conducting any prior research; people vote without conducting a simple google search or without getting acquainted with the topic! I don't understand that! I really don't understand that!!! The article is clearly notable, since the Greek community of Kyrgyzstan is linked to the merchant community of imperial Russia (some of them deportated to Siberia during World War II, and then settled to Kyrgyzstan), and to the Pontian Greeks who settled to the country. I started expanding the article, and I'll keep doing it, and I declare that I am determined to keep it. There are many deletes votes, but I don't know if the people who voted had any idea of what I now state, or if they were interested in learning about this important community. And, of course, PMK1 this article was not created for the sake of it! And an important and historical community, BlueSquadronRaven is not mere statistics!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you are overexaggerating the case here. Stalin's "special settlers"—deported nationalities including Koreans, Germans, Greeks, etc.—mostly ended up in Kazakhstan (with the exception of some groups from the Caucasus who were settled in Kyrgyzstan). Even after their freedom of movement was restored, Kyrgyzstan was not a popular destination. Writing an article full of generic citations about Greeks in Central Asia and assuming the content applies equally to Greeks in Kyrgyzstan (when many of these studies are written on the basis of Greeks in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) is not really a good structure ... an overview article of "Greeks in Central Asia" may be more appropriate (see e.g. Koryo-saram which I created some years ago; up to now I haven't broken these off into separate by-country articles, simply because there's lots of shared history and details, but little content which differs by country). cab (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not using "generic citations about Greeks in Central Asia and assuming the content applies equally to Greeks in Kyrgyzstan". Yes, the communities in Kazakhstand and Uzbekistan were larger, but this does not mean that there is not a story worth telling for the community of Kyrgyzstan as well! Deportation, migration back to Greece, current status are issues good enough for a short but interesting and notable article. I know that the general context of the sources is not focused on Kyrgyzstan, but there is data, info, statistics etc. for this community as well. And this is what I use. And sources do say that in early 1990s there was a community in Kyrgyzstan with a past, a history, a present, and a story to tell the world!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Further sources and info are added, always focused on Kyrgyzstan (no "generic citations" as it was inaccurately told). I think that the article comprehensively informs us now when, how, and where these people settled there.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, If you can provide Reliable Sources then there should be no objection to its deletion. However the artice failed to meet notability and maybe your edits will create notability. I wouldn't get angry over it ;-). PMK1 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I noticed some improvement since the article was nominated (there are some wording issues that should be addressed) and I think it has enough substantial sourced info now for it to be kept. I found it pretty interesting and I'm sure others will as well. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "besides the source listed in the article I've found no other sources relating to this topic" is not a valid argument for deletion. It is just nonsensical. There are already enough sources listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time of the nomination, there were almost no sources cited [34] and the ones cited were quite trivial, so the nominator's argument is not "nonsensical". He may not have reviewed this nomination since that time. cab (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but at this point, he should withdraw his nomination, or retract his statement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:01, 8 May 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.
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 Delete. Yannismarou (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Cuba

[edit]
Greeks in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating this article for deletion as per WP:NOTABILITY. PMK1 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC) PMK1 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWikipedia is not a directory listing articles with every bilateral combination of persons from country X who live in country Y. A few incidentals in newspapers does not establish that such article are encyclopedic, and the references do not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 4 AfDs.[37][38][39][40] As I have copy and pasted this notice also. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that the articles are cookie-cutter stubs which fail the same guidelines. Why spend time rewording the same objections to articles which read like they were spewed out by a robot? Edison (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you pasted your comment onto four different AfDs, it looks to me like you didn't even read Greeks in Poland, which explained the history of the community and listed multiple journal articles in its "References" and "Further reading" sections --- this lack of attention is what likely provoked Ikip to copy-paste his own comment across all these debates. cab (talk) 00:00, 7 May 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.
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 delete. Nja247 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in the Philippines

[edit]
Greeks in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The does not seem to meet notability. Unless ten families living away from home is something notable the article does not serve a purpose. The etymology of the name "Phillip" is irrelevant to this article so is the map of the Philipines. Unless WP:Notability can be proven the article should be deleted. PMK1 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because of failure to establish notability:
Greeks in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • A community of 30 individuals. No notable effect on Cuba or Greece.
Greeks in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Similar reasons to the above. The majority are migrant workers who come and go. No notable effect upon Ireland and no notability established.
Greeks in Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Again no assertion of notability
Greeks in Panama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Another article in a series of these. Request deletion per WP:N
Greeks in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • No assertion of notability here either.
Greeks in Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Again, unsourced, unverifiable and fails to establish notability.

PMK1 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I tried to have the articles as close as possible to each other. However I have listed them seperately as per your concerns. Maybe the Poland article is different from the the others? However unless reliable sources can be proved then they should all be deleted. PMK1 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. In general it may be the case that one article has reliable sources while all the others lack them; it makes it hard on the closing admin to determine consensus with a bunch of "keep some, delete others" votes. Cheers, cab (talk) 03:04, 27 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.
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. MBisanz talk 03:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian-Greek relations

[edit]
Cambodian-Greek relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

completely insignificant relationship [41] non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 29 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.
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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Ethiopia

[edit]
Greeks in Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nothing really noteworthy about this population that justifies a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 24 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.
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. MBisanz talk 02:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Iceland relations

[edit]
Greece–Iceland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Strong keep - They are technically allies through NATO, WWII, European Councils, etc. I'd like to get more reliable sources on the nature of their embassies and level of trade. This might be rescued. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, I've found lots of sources from old articles at GNews: [44], for example, voting together in 1949 in the UN [45], US exports to both countries [46], and this gerat one [47]. I'm convinced now they meet my own standards. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that both are NATO members is documented at Members of NATO. That both received some amount of steel from the US at the same time in 1948 says nothing about their own relationship. And while at a prime ministerial meeting, relations were said to be "excellent" (what else could we expect? A war?), it was also noted that "many opportunities for furthering cooperation existed in the economy, in investments and in the tourism sector" -- translation: the current relationship doesn't amount to much. - Biruitorul Talk 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article as fixed up? Bearian (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The "historical context" section tries to make something out of nothing. Allow me to explain. The two were not allies in WWII - Iceland was part of Denmark, it was then occupied by the British, and finally remained neutral after independence in 1944 (see Iceland during World War II) - in no way was it part of the Allies. That Greece and Iceland (together with Portugal, Austria and Libya) voted to abstain on whether to admit Red China to the UN in 1958 (not 1949) says nothing about their relationship - it's entirely possible (indeed likely) they arrived at that vote independently of one another, and it also does not mean they "voted together often" in the UN. And finally, that the US gave steel to both of them says nothing about their relationship: it says something about the US-Iceland relationship and the US-Greece one, but nothing about the Greece-Iceland one.
The second part, aside from reading like a news release and not an encyclopedia article, again hypes this up in absurd fashion. As I said above, the fact that even they say that there are "many opportunities for furthering cooperation" means cooperation is not that extensive at present. And where exactly does one derive that Iceland's support on Macedonia is "highly important" to anyone? A single, routine visit does not make for a notable relationship by any means. And by the way, the lack of mutual embassies is rather telling. - Biruitorul Talk 18:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— All In Order (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Relations between two countries are always relevant, even if the people that live in them do not speak English (see WP:BIAS). This one is well documented and clearly notable. "Unremarkable" is scarcely a reason for deletion. I am pleased to find that Greece and Iceland are on good terms - it would have been remarkable to me if they were not. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever is relevant is already covered elsewhere. Bringing up the "don't speak English" argument is a strawman - I and at least another "delete" voter are not native English speakers. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right on "don't speak English" - shouldn't have put in that dig at the other editors. I apologize. But I do sense bias and it bothers me. I think this article has potential, if limited. It does have references and I don't see where else the subject would be well-covered. All of these country-X / country-Y relation articles fall between the two countries. Usually they will document the rather dull and routine exchanges between the two countries with stuffed shirts mouthing platitudes about economic cooperation and cultural exchanges. Blah blah. Still, I see value and no harm in articles that summarize current and past relations between two countries. If the material has good sources, I can see no reason to delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument you make wraps around the notion that we need this type of articles as a rule. I would like to go back in time and make the first people who thought up such articles (whatever the countries involved) rethink - particularly since they "fall between the two countries" (my editing experience tells me that this most often makes them content forks, and unlinkable to). But whatever my principles on the generic issue, articles like this one simply don't make the cut: sure, one can write plenty about how the two countries are members of the same organizations (the point?) or about how one took an unclear stance on an issue which may or may not be the other's business, but that only proves that this articles attract content which we can do without, and which we only have around because somebody decided we need to "fill in" the bilateral relations article. Ironically, if there's anything that important, it will actually have found a place in the system (for instance, the FYROM issue could fit in somewhere in the plethora of articles we have on the various incidents surrounding Greece's "problems" with Macedonia, where it would receive its deserved importance as a footnote or a passing mention); if it isn't, and it's just there as filler, then we don't need it all. Also consider this exercise, which I view as essential: once an article like such as this one satisfies your requirements, and therefore exists, do you picture any other article (other than maybe the corresponding "Foreign relations" ones) ever linking to it? I can only see it as forking eternally somewhere in a dark corner, its only use being that it has lived up to its own tailor-made expectations. Dahn (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The question is not what we need, the question is what we want to have. Every non-confusing way or organizing information is good, if the information is inherently of value from an encyclopedic standpoint. Multiple approaches to similar and overlapping topics are a positive feature of anything that is not paper. The relations between two countries is valuable and productive way of thinking about politics and economics and society, both currently and historically. Now, suppose that someone thinks it is not a productive or interesting way-- the solution is for that person not to work on it. If we stated interfering with articles we think uninteresting or unimportant, AFD will grow exponentially. (e.g.: I'd love to try to remove as many wrestling articles as possible, because I think no rational person ought to care about the whole general area. I know that's not the consensus, but perhaps I could persistently chip away at the edges.... ). "Content we could do without" -- the totally opposite way of looking at things from making a comprehensive encyclopedia. We're not making an abridged encyclopedia. If you want one, clone it. DGG (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above proposes dividing wikipedia into separate parts, and welcoming content forks. Alas, it's not the first time I've seen DGG supporting this notion. And no, I don't see anybody supporting the argument according to which this article (or others in its series) is "uninteresting", it being "unimportant" is really a misnomer, and the analogy with wrestling flawed (since that would be a discussion about bio notability, where clear, if indeed questionable, standards exists, and were, by definition, the possibility of forking is limited by a person being one, and not two people). The point I for one have made is that the info in said articles is only there to support the articles existing (and therefore amounts to trivia), that there is a marginal possibility most will ever be linked in other articles, and that a system thriving on editors ignoring content fork can only lead to a proliferation of cruft, when editors such as myself are actually trying to provide the reader with structured info (and that structure, is, I do believe, a wikipedia goal, hence this very page). And, if I may: the supposition according to which "delete" votes are on grounds of the article being "uninteresting" strikes me as an attempt to hide the actual fact that the main (only?) reason behind the "keep" votes, overriding all stylistic or structural issues, is that the "keep" voters find the article "interesting" (or "not-uninteresting"). Dahn (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any fork issue here - think that is a continuation of another discussion. There are two obvious links to any article like this: Foreign relations of Country X and Foreign relations of Country Y, both of which would point to it for further detail. And a reader looking for information who searched on the two country names looking for information on their relations would likely find it. There are a lot of Greeks in Nigeria Iceland who may be looking for this information. Yes, an article like this could be a focus for the kind of POV edit wars everyone hates. The first search results I found for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Haiti relations were highly opinionated - I can see that article evolving into yet another battleground. But that is a problem we have to find ways to deal with. We can't exclude articles because we find them trivial or boring, or suspect may be controversial. I prefer to fall back on the well-tried notability guidelines: multiple independent sources = keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "I don't see any fork issue here", see my "filler" comment. For "two obvious links" - yes, I've included them in my comment; got more? The crystal balling about Greeks being in Iceland and needing the info (about WWII? about FYROM?) is pretty much out there, and begs a comparison with people needing a phone number and going on wikipedia to find it. I don't find it convincing at all. About the POV war: I'm not sure if that's in answer to something I said, because I don't recall voicing such concerns (though, yes, I believe AfD should also function against POV forks that only function as edit-war baits, I can't see how that applies in this particular case). Btw, the very "trial" by which these articles acquire "many (?) independent sources" is flawed: once the article's relevancy is doubted, an editor who objects sets out to find x sources that mention X country and Y country together, and once this is over claims to have provided a summary of relations. Let's start from the reasonable assumption that something has by now been written about the relationship between any two states, at random (and, incidentally, in this article the sources don't even say anything about the relationship between the two countries, just about a subject involving them and some other tens of countries together, and at least two sources, I note, have been quoted improperly and for no apparent reason). Quoting such sources would establish very little, if anything, about the actual relationship, because it would be based not on the summary of a studied relationship, but on bits of info used to fill a vacuum. It's like writing on a dare, not like recording subjects validated by analytical sources. I would imagine that comparing such subjects, where the main agent of selection is a wikipedia editor (and thus by definition speculative, if not simply WP:SYNTH), to bilateral relationship which are by now the main topics of specialty books is an absolute exaggeration - fine, keep the latter category if we have to, but the former simply needs to go. Dahn (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess to serial violations of "filling in". I find an article that seems incomplete or biased, check around, add some more content. I think that is largely the way Wikipedia grows. As long as there are reliable independent sources, well, storage is cheap. I started an article on Baeocrara once - don't know why. It is very small, but maybe of interest to a few people. A couple of editors have contributed. It gets about 3 page views a day. Seems like a suitable topic. Maybe Greece–Iceland relations will get more hits. Time to get some sleep. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing my point. I have nothing against most articles on "obscure" topics that get "few hits", and (I'm repeating myself) I don't object this article because it's obscure, but because it "validates" itself with trivia. I have nothing against writing, say, an article on Greek/Icelandic poets that are not known to the general public (even the Greek/Icelandic public), as long as they fit with general guidelines by being mentioned by their peers. As for Baeocrara, I have contributed similar articles myself, though not in the same field. The issue here is not about the supposed obscurity of the topic, but about the validity of separate coverage. In this context, it also involves the usage of sources, most of which we wouldn't normally use at all (because nobody would consider the events they describe notable in themselves), and which casually mention two subjects. This method of validating a separate article, I dare say, abuses what the sources say (it's not a relationship they talk about), what an article is supposed to cover (I approve of Edison's comment above, to which I may add WP:SYNTH, and perhaps WP:COATRACK) and what the relationship between articles is supposed to be (WP:CFORK, WP:BTW). Dahn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are reasonable people who will disagree if a type of article should be on Wikipedia, and there is an ongoing discussion about standards specific to these types, but according to the general notability standards, I think this still fits. Ultmately, I use the "student standard" -- if it is probable that some high school or college student would find this article useful as a starting point for research, then keep it in. Hmmm.... that's a good as an standard as I've seen. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To focus solely on the new point you add: what the student will find in most such juxtapositions (this one included) that he wouldn't find elsewhere is solely what a wikipedia editor was able to collect in several minutes, or at most an hour, using a search engine and typing the names of the two countries. This article says: "Look, a text can be written by synthesizing random tidbits that popped up in said search. One can transform the actual arguments about how this is a poor excuse for article writing into one saying that said operation can't be performed, and express satisfaction when it was performed." I'm sure that, in the unlikely event a student has the unfortunate idea that he or she can write a paper using trivia, he or she can perform the same exercise with a google search. Another soft spot of the "student standard" is that we are always debating these articles a posteriori. They don't pop up because someone needs them, and the need is always hypothetical and sometimes clearly bogus; they pop up simply because someone has said "why not?", and if they weren't already around I'd wager nobody would miss them (students included). Dahn (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is straying far from whether this particular article should be kept, but anyway ... It is probably true that a lot of articles do start with an editor taking an interest in a subject, doing a quick search, and within an hour or less making an article that just reproduces obvious information from Google. But if they are obsessive-compulsive as I am and I suspect quite a lot of other editors are, they will add internal links, think about the new aspects of the subject those links suggest, search for more information, add to the article, restructure and expand. Then other editors with different knowledge and ways of thinking will come across the article, revise and add to it. In the end, with luck, there is a good comprehensive and well-organized article that gives the student what they need to know without spending hours or days of research. There is no new knowledge in the article, of course. There should not be. But there is real value. I would not spend time as an editor if I did not believe that. (That last statement is not really true. I enjoy exploring subjects and recording my findings, and am not too concerned about how wide the audience is.)
On this article, and all other AfD articles for that matter, I prefer the very simple test that it should be more than a stub and should present relevant information about the subject with reliable sources. It does not have to be a great article and does not have to be an exhaustive study. If there is general interest in the subject it will expand and improve. If not, it will do no harm. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just about any such juxtaposition of common terms will result in "more than a stub", but I still fail to see how that implies the article should exist. For instance, I could write a piece of FA depth and proportions (which an article such as the one we're discussing has no chance in hell of becoming) about Adolf Hitler and Romania - both terms are valid, the info resulting from the juxtaposition would be sufficiently covered by sources etc. It would not be validated as an article because it would be guided by my informative priorities (my synthesis), and not by an encyclopedic structure, because the existing info is already covered or should be covered elsewhere. The fact that I could write about a topic at length does not mean everything I could write about is a proper or necessary article, especially since wikipedia strives for coherent articles that do not contradict each other, and I don't see how this sort of proliferation could help anyone maintain that coherence without wasting days just trying to figure out how thousands of articles relate to each other.
Furthermore, if the relevant info already exists, then we are talking about content forks, which only serve to hinder more logically structured info; the measure of difference here is trivia (i.e.: stuff that we simply wouldn't have and wouldn't need were it not for the arbitrary juxtapositions: one wouldn't even refer to all the visits a state leader has undertook in a bio article on that state leader, but we are supposed to view the more obscure and inconsequential of those visits as relevant when they "validate" juxtapositions of countries which have no form of relationship above that "tidbit" level). Dahn (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that articles should not be created that simply duplicate information recorded elsewhere, and am not arguing for creating trivial articles - only ones where there is significant content. But Country X-Y relations articles may serve as the opposite of forks (assuming these is relevant information about country X-Y relations.) That is, the article on "Country X foreign relations" can have an entry * Country Y: See Country X-Y relations, and the article on "Country X foreign relations" can have a similar entry. The content is held in one place only, rather than duplicating it in the articles on Country X and Country Y foreign relations or, worse, not duplicated it but forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what I'm saying is that, aside from trivia, articles such as the one we're discussing are equivalent to the sentence "X and Y have some sort of relations". There's hardly a need to summarize the rest of the info elsewhere, since it never comes up otherwise in an encyclopedia, and there's hardly a need to have a separate article on a sentence. What's more: creating an "article" on the "title-see also" structure is an MOS nightmare; the proper way to do that would be to have at least a summary paragraph - it's telling that an article such as this one will be its own summary... Now, as much as I dislike the idea of "bilateral relations" articles in general, I can be persuaded that some of the articles could survive independently, but the bar would have to be set much higher than "Greece-Iceland" (fine with "Canada-US", "China-US", even "Bulgaria-Serbia", "India-Nepal"). If anyone will ever need detailed info on the others (which I sincerely doubt), all of what is notable can easily be bundled into a sentence or two, and then kept in the existing articles.
On the issue of duplication: some info will be duplicated no matter what, and, technically, once you reduce it to a "see also", it's still duplicated (an exact duplicate, in fact). In any case, since the rule of thumb is to summarize the articles linked as "see alsos", we would still be duplicating the content for those "more notable" of bilateral relations articles, and we would still have to deal with monotony somehow. Nothing lost, nothing gained on that field. Moreover, proper writing will always leave us with a degree of monotony to deal with: articles on similar topics will have to describe and/or summarize a situation that resurfaces. For example, if I write (as i did) articles about Romanian people who played a part in WWI, and if I want to texts to make any sense to the average reader, I have to mention in each article that Romania was an Entente country, that the Germans occupied southern Romania etc. etc. Finding different but complementary ways of saying the same thing is something an editor has to live with. Dahn (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no reliable sources establish that this relationship is a notable one, and it is unlikely to ever be such. I am amused at the puff used to try to asset the relationship as notable, however. They were both among the 44 UN members who voted against China's entrance in 1959? The United States provided steel subsidies to greece -- and separately provided steel subsidies to iceland after WWII -- and this trivia establishes a notable bilateral relationship between Iceland and Greece (that's so embarressing it should be excised from the article immediately). Both are members of the OECD? Etc... Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By both being NATO members itself means there's heavy government documentation on the relations between the two. Military base personnel in each others countries alone garner government and NATO sources.--Oakshade (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To assume that NATO in its 50-plus history generated absolutely no documentation on its members and how they relate to each other operationally and diplomatically is willful ignorance and requesting such documentation in an AfD is a case of Wikilawyering.--Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made the claim; you supply the evidence. Sources abound showing US-German cooperation in the NATO context; US-French cooperation (or lack thereof); US-UK; US-Italy; France-Germany; UK-France, etc. - in other words, the obvious cases. Just because you say there's cooperation between two small countries on opposite fringes of NATO territory, one of which does not even have an army, does not make it so. You haven't shown the documentation - indeed, you probably cannot show it - so your argument falls flat. - Biruitorul Talk 00:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliably sourced evidence of a significant relationship has been established - the article seems to be bound together by synthesis - I don't see how the fact that they both received U.S. steel or that they have both held the same position during votes in the UN is relevant to their relations - they also both have the letter c in their name and are both majority Christian, neither fact has anything to do with their relations. The rest of the article is a news report of a single meeting, not enough to support an article on the general topic. I think it has been established throughout various discussions including numerous AfD's that creating these articles on mass with no consideration to the importance of the relationship is not supported by consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources - Searching the Greek language sources, I was able to find some very in-depth reliable sources on Greece-Iceland relations. [48][49][50]. So far we've been expecting English language sources on a topic about two non-English speaking nations and not desiring to cover it because English language sources haven't heavily covered the topic, an example of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so the Greek President (a figurehead, by the way) made a visit to Iceland. Can you prove that the information is relevant, not just that it exists? You're proposing to prioritize trivia here - trivia that would never even make it into the subject's biography. - Biruitorul Talk 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relations are the in-depth subject of reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. If you don't feel that's significant, that's fine, but the standards of this encyclopedia set forth by consensus don't agree. --Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, what you've got there are three articles, two of which are releases by the state-subsidized Athens News Agency, which seems to cover all events related to state business (and, in any way, does not have the level of independence we set for establishing notability). The other is a passing mention in a newspaper article which, I suppose, does not in any way comment on significance in its five paragraphs, but merely records that it happened (which no one doubts); the newspaper gives coverage to all sorts of events, many of which do not deserve mention on wikipedia, let alone a separate article. And clearly, the material in both sources is not, as was claimed, "very in-depth". This is in addition to Biruitorul's objections, which still stand, despite Oakshade's exercise in "I can't hear you". Dahn (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, using google translate, it appears that the only outside source cited here, the Naftemporiki article, centers on a trade agreement which eliminated the double taxation of imports and exports, signed during a courtesy visit. More than half of it cites the Greek President, who I don't think has any say in executive matters, expressing hope for more cooperation in the economic sphere. Trivial, anyone? Dahn (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial? "Trivial" has long been defined in WP:NOTABILITY as "passing mention" or "directory listing". Multi-paragraphed articles directly on Greece-Iceland relations is not in any manner a "passing mention" or "directory listing." Not counting Athens News Agency articles because it's not independent of the nation of Greece is pure Wikilawyering. Biruitorul's weak argument (if you can even call it that) of ignoring articles directly about Greece-Iceland relations demonstrating the notability of Greece-Iceland relations is amusing at best and while the objection might "stand", it's wasn't even worth countering. --Oakshade (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one, let's note how you assume the notability of information presented in an article you haven't apparently read. I'm not counting ANA articles because they're not neutral, and because they discuss the activities of the cabinet to a level we don't ever touch here - which also makes it trivial under any definition of the ones tested here. And, yes, all three sources are indeed passing mentions - should we now start having articles on everything that was covered by one newspaper article? Also, state visits and other news items are not significant in themselves, and are only taken as proof as notability in absurd articles such as the one we're discussing; elsewhere, including in the bio articles on the visitors, and they would be automatically considered trivia if all they say is stuff like "X has visited country Z for three days". One can clearly see from both my points and Biruitorul's that there are at least three WP:GNGs that clash with your "sources", as much and as abusively as GNG has been invoked by the "keep" camp. Reading GNG together with WP:PSTS and then noting the words "national agency" as associated with ANA should also make clear why the accusation of "wikilawyering" is bogus. Dahn (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're just repeating the same invented "trival" argument. If you think multi-paragraphed articles on a topic are considered trivial by WP:NOTABILITY's standards, you are free to advocate this on the WP:NOTABLITY's talk page. Otherwise you're just passionately fighting a losing battle and this looks like consensus on against deleting this article based on the relationship of these nations. It's not even worth writing long counter arguments to weak ones. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, now you're just being rude. As for your interpretation of what constitutes trivial and what doesn't, I'd be very interested to see what your claim of things having "long been defined" and by whom relies on. For now, let's have a look over these quotes from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" (with an additional mention that a one-sentence mention is trivial, whereas a 300-page book isn't); "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." (I leave it to you to [re-]read the long application of that principle in note 2, but let me highlight this phrase: "Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large"); "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): [...] press releases." Lastly, let's not disregard this: "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." So, if there's something you want to have reconsidered about these issues, it is you who may want to consider agitating on the WP:N talk page.
And, as has been said many times by now without seemingly attracting your interest: citing random sources mentioning various events not inherently notable (state visits) to evidence and support a questionable and questioned phenomenon (relations) is WP:SYNTH. Dahn (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, this long speech is actually confirming this article passes WP:NOTABILITY. The articles covering Greece-Iceland relations are not "one sentence mentions" but multi-paragraphed articles. You can't get around that. And if you don't think coverage on this topic and other arguments by other "keep" voters are not indications that article is "presumed" notable by WP:N standards, that's your opinion but WP:NOTABILITY and, in this case, consensus disagrees with you. I'm done argueing against someone who's making a feeble attempt at Wikilawyering and practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Go ahead and have the last word. I'm done. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, Oakshade. If your objection is that my replies are long, feel free not to read them. As I have shown with citations and you were unwilling or unable to dispute, WP:N does not in fact agree with you. I didn't even take the "consensus exists" claim into consideration, since it's evidently irrational, and made spurious by the many, many AfDs, this one included, as well as by a "centralized discussion". Screaming otherwise won't make my arguments an "opinion" and yours "truth", and the irony of you invoking IDIDNTHEARTHAT after complaining that my posts are too long is glaring. Dahn (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. The article has been blown up with ridiculous little things such as voting the same way in the UN or both being NATO members. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul Talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out amore appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 30 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.
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Nigerian relations

[edit]
Greek-Nigerian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another random pairing with no attempt made to establish notability from an obsessive stub creator. The existence of a Nigerian community in Greece is unremarkable and can be discussed somewhere else. IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts DGG (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have filled in some details on diplomatic, trade, people etc. relations. Still a skeleton article, but I think it is now clear that the relationship is notable and interesting. Greek investments in Nigeria today exceed US$5 billion, although that has nothing to do with notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deja-vu, yadd-yadda. Dahn (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deja-vu, yadda-yadda. -- llywrch (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 10:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete behind all of the sources in the current version there is no evidence of a notable bilateral relationship. $5 billion of cumulative private investment by greek companies in nigeria over 60 years (sourced to greek government press release, but whatever) is not very much -- Nigerian GDP is about $170 billion and Greece's is about $300 billion. Even if we assume that $5 billion was invested over a five year period (instead of 60 years, but again, whatever) that amounts to private investment of about 0.7% of Nigerian GDP per year -- and that says nothing about gov-to-gov relations (the trade numbers are really trifling -- a total of about $100 million is what, 0.05% of Nigerian GDP). What else? Greek dominance in shipping means that Greek ships often call at every major port in the world. That they call at Lagos, too, says nothing about the bilateral relationship between these states. That 300 Greeks live in Lagos and 3,000 Nigerians live in various greek cities also says nothing about bilateral relations (and giving the globe trotting habitual to citizens of both nations seems empirically small).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the dollar value of the relationship determines whether it is worthy of an article. The article describes some of the many official and commercial ties between the two countries, and is fully sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were added in using primary sources in what appeared to me as an effort to use SYNTH to establish some kind of notability. And on that basis, the relative value of those commercial relationships is important. For the sake of the argument -- if you could point out the single best source that demonstrates notability for this topic, i'll give my honest assesment of it. Remember, verifiability is neccessary but not sufficient for inclusion (that is, to say something is "sourced" is not sufficient to detemine if the topic at hand merits inclusion).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious independent sources are:
  • Guardian News shows some press interest in the official relationship. There are a couple of other news stories like this, never very exciting articles!
  • Athens News gives some human interest about Nigerian immigrants in Greece
  • Philippine Daily Inquirer discusses issues with Greek shipping in Nigeria, backed up by a couple of other other news sources
This content was slapped together very quickly after the stub showed up in AfD (it beats me why anyone would churn out a bunch of stubs like this.) I am sure that a more careful check would find many more independent sources. There is a lot going on between the two countries, particularly in trade & investment, and the papers are bound to be reporting it.
I don't see SYNTH. To me that is stringing together two statements from different sources to reach a novel conclusion: "X said the USA stands for freedom, Y says the Tamil Tigers are fighting for freedom. So the USA supports the Tamil Tigers." Obviously unacceptable. I suppose you could stretch the SYNTH definition to say that the collection of statements from the independent sources is being used to imply the relationship exists. The only statements that directly discuss the relationship come from primary sources such as diplomats who are clearly biased - the relationship is their job. But I think that is stretching it. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I read the first source from The Nigerian Guardian. (since you placed it first, assuming that is the strongest). The outgoing greek ambassador to nigeria said very nice things about nigeria in his going-away event, and this single-sourced article in a nigerian newspaper is about that. I don't see that as establishing this is a notable bilateral relationship. Unless he's been PNG'd, every outgoing ambassador for country x says nice things about host country y.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it would be easy enough to add many stories similar to the one from the The Nigerian Guardian from the leading Nigerian and Greek newspapers. They will tend to report stories like "Meeting with his counterpart in Athens today, the Nigerian Minister of trade said he wanted to strengthen economic and cultural ties between his country and Greece." These really would be reliable independent sources reporting on the relationship. Also, they would be extremely boring and would add nothing to the article. So how many different articles from how many different newspapers would be enough to establish notability? (be reasonable - I have a day job) Aymatth2 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At that level of trivia? You could have millions and it still wouldn't help. Let me put it this way -- various mediocre high school sports programs have been written up thousands of times in local/semi-local papers (for the mediocre high school teams i played on, that would have been the newark star ledger). Would the existence of thousands of trivial game reports justify inclusion of individual high school sports teams in wikipedia? No. These sort of single source stories, written from press releases aren't much different. There is no in-depth coverage of this supposed relationship in any of them. I'd like one source that isn't trivial and is about the relationship. Just one.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question - I am not sure where to look. I tried searching for Ελλάδα Νιγηρία σχέση, but the results were all Greek to me. Apart from the government sites, which have a lot to say about the relationship, they seemed to mostly be about the Siemens scandal, Commerce or the trade in prostitution. I am starting to wonder if Greece has any diplomatic or economic relationships with Nigeria, or if it is all an elaborate hoax: the two countries have never heard of each other and the newspapers are just making it up. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 28 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.
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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece-Guyana relations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Greece-Guyana relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. this link demonstrates no notable relationship.

the above should be disregarded as a vote for keep as it does not assess the notability of the article. it was heading for WP:SNOW in any case. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. And what do you mean it was heading for WP:SNOW? Another nomination of this article at AfD not even 2 weeks ago was closed as no consensus. Not a case for SNOW by any standard. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNothing substantial, indeed nothing logical in this pairing. Why it wasn't deleted the first time is beyond me. Dahn (talk) 17:13, 28 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.
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. Nja247 08:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani-Greek relations

[edit]
Azerbaijani-Greek relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another random pairing of countries. A search of google news turns up the usual visits by politicians, trade agreements, etc, but nothing out of the ordinary. Mergellus (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep although I normally vote delete for almost all of these random combinations, the Greek government has some interest [51]. they both also have embassies which I wouldn't expect. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first, no secondary sources discuss the relationship; second, what sources do talk about Azerbaijan and Greece involve the usual low-level stuff: "aims to boost relations", agreements to supply gas; energy cooperation memoranda, and the like. To the extent the gas deliveries are notable, mention them in a much more logical location like Nabucco Pipeline. - Biruitorul Talk 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My work is continuing on this article, there appears to be something here and plenty of secondary sources to prove it. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But more work needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable to speak of. Dahn (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I quote from this source "Due to its important geo-political position and energy resources Azerbaijan is of special interest to Greece". We also have difficulties here, a debate about military cooperation here and this may be worth a look. Smile a While (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the above sources. It is such things as trade agreements and high level visits by politicians that make up international relations. DGG (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. But just as we don't record the weekly speeches delivered by and the meetings chaired by the CEO of Microsoft or Wal-mart (companies with budgets larger than many countries'), there's no reason for us to have a record of visiting parliamentary delegations and ambassadorial briefings. Taken out of context and dumped in here for the sake of "expanding" an "article" that no one asked for and the absence of which would never be noticed if it hadn't been created, such snippets abuse the very notion of what an encyclopedia is for. - Biruitorul Talk 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But one of the sole purposes in deletions is to see if you can't improve the article first. I quote from WP:AFD "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." And as many of these have shown, they can be improved to the point where they are encyclopedic. What makes this article different from others is that there have been high level meetings between the two, visits between heads of states, many trade deals and as Smile a While shows also a military co-operation. That my friend is what bilateral relations are even if they aren't the biggest ones in the world they still fall into the scope of what relations are. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:39, 25 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.
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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei-Greece relations

[edit]
Brunei-Greece relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another completely laughable combination from the obsessive creator. no resident embassies, There are three or four Greek families living in the capital of the country!!! LibStar (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Comment - Some respect please libStar. This editor is doing his best to improve our coverage of bi-lateral relations and a lot of the articles he starts should have articles and could quite easily be expanded into full articles even if they begin as stubs. I agree though that often the way they are started doesn't help the cause to establish any real content though. With Brunei its a difficult one outside southeast-Asia as its just a small country with no embassies so would be difficult to write about. I think people who contribute to wikipedia or at least try to help it should not be laughed at like this and given some respect evne if this article is a little offline in terms of likely content. Seems this editor is a sockpuppet and you are right about this one but people shouldn't feel discouraged from editing and laughed at, thats my point. We need content contributors even if some are a little misguided and need some redirection. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:21, 24 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.
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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Oman relations

[edit]
Greece–Oman relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another laughable combination, the Greek foreign ministry doesn't even list any bilateral relations with Oman [52] LibStar (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. heading for WP:SNOW LibStar (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 29 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.
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. MBisanz talk 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Singapore relations

[edit]
Greece–Singapore relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination, no resident ambassadors, only 1 bilateral agreement and very limited relations [53]. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 29 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.
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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Zambia relations

[edit]
Greece–Zambia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:42, 22 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.
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. Fram (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Poland

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Greeks in Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to establish WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example, the Radio Free Europe source says they were about 5,000 Macedonians and 5,000 Greeks. Also there's a mention in Majewicz, Alfred F.; Wicherkiewicz, Tomasz (1998), "Minority Rights Abuse in Communist Poland and Inherited Issues", Acta Slavica Iaponica, 16, "it can be noted here that Polish administration supported the Greek refugees in Poland in forcible Hellenization of personal names of Aegean Macedonians, representatives of whom came to Poland together with the Greeks", which seems like an issue worth looking into further. cab (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; fair enough. There is a section here which discusses the Aegean Macedonian refugees from Greece into Poland after the Civil War. There are many sources about it but at the moment I dont think that it warrants a seperate article. PMK1 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 4 May 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.
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 Delete. Yannismarou (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Ireland

[edit]
Greeks in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Oh dear. I sincerely hope this doesn't kick off another 30k articles about [Nationality X] in [Country Y]. We're having enough trouble with the bilateral relations articles. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately, there's no equivalent to Groubani in this topic area. Occasionally, a nationalist will come along and create articles about his own people in every rich/nearby country. But not every country on earth, and not any nationality but his own. So at worst, there's only a few dozen such articles at a time needing cleanup/deletion, not thousands. cab (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's much simpler to have 20,000 articles like that. You don't actually have to create them, you just create templates for them, and the redlinks will become articles through the work of many hands. Much more efficient that way. Drawn Some (talk) 01:12, 4 May 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.
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 delete. Nja247 08:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Venezuela

[edit]
Greeks in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to establish WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:48, 27 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.
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 delete. Nja247 08:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Panama

[edit]
Greeks in Panama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to establish WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs tends to overexagerate the number of Greeks around the world; I would not be surprised it this was also the case here. PMK1 (talk) 05:55, 27 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.
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 delete. Nja247 08:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Luxembourg

[edit]
Greeks in Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:46, 27 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.
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 delete. MBisanz talk 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negush uprising

[edit]
Negush uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obvious POV fork of (part of) the article Greek_War_of_Independence#Macedonia. The information is repeating and describes a single event not notable of a separate article. Plus, it was represented in a rather peculiar way, not backed up with any reliable sources (I've searched for such in both Latin and Cyrillic). And anothe plus - it was most probably created and maintained by socks of indef-banned User:Cukiger. Laveol T 20:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this is a very misinformed and ahistorical article, which twists events in unacceptable fashion. Constantine ✍ 11:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The locals call it Naoussa uprising and it is an event of the Greek war for independence. The town of Naoussa it is called now "Η.Π. ΝΑΟΥΣΑΣ", "H.T. of NAOUSSA" by the locals, which means Heroic Town of Naousa. That means they know what their grand grand fathers did and why. There is no "Naousa uprising" but "Greek uprising" for them. There is not, also "Negush" but "Naoussa" for them. So, there is no Negush uprising because there is no Negush and there is no uprising, too. DELETE IT NOW before I get ungry and write an article about "My PC Room Uprising"...Chrusts 12:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

Delete, this is a pseudohistorical article. Jingby (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Jingby (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm serious, see WP:AGF. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:14, 17 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.
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 to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Zimbabwean relations

[edit]
Greek-Zimbabwean relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These two countries have a relationship, but as established by plenty of recent AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay relations for example), bilateral relations are not inherently notable. The only additional claims of notability are that Greece pledged some cash for Zimbabwe (which is hardly unusual, given it's a basket-case), and that the Greek Ambassador there made some pretty vague comments. These may make for interesting news stories, but hardly amount to an interesting relationship. Biruitorul Talk 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. Now you can keep saying "yes there is" but all you've found are newsbriefs and press releases that X official visited Y country. That kind of sourcing doesnt' establish independent notability for issues that should be covered (if there's any info on them at all -- none really in this "article") in Foreign relations of Greece and Foreign relations of Zimbabwe.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no relation, why would you mention it anywhere at all, let alone in two place? Hilary T (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I didn't know the question was exclusively for Bali. Why don't you assume good faith, eh? I dare you to get a witchhunt going, that would teach me a lesson! (sarcasm) Tavix |  Talk  02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bilateral relations that do not assert notability. Tavix |  Talk  23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wow, that reference on the page really made it very clear for me "no Greek businesses operate in the country and no businesspeople from Greece have developed activities there. Economic aid and development programmes have been insignificant from the beginning, except for certain individual grants"[70] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that reference also back up the religious connection: "The Holy Archbishopric of Zimbabwe and Southern Africa is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The Metropolitan of Zimbabwe, His Eminence George, was installed in December 2004 and serves the Holy Archbishopric together with a Greek priest." Also I don't agree with the objection to news items per se. This doesn't clearly fail WP:N, but perhaps merging with Greeks in Zimbabwe would produce a more substantial article. Nerfari (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hum, that Archbishop is only for the orthodox community in Zimbawe, which I think that is not very numerous? Is there a similar archbishop in every country with an orthodox population? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References already there, plus the Greeks in Zimbabwe points to a larger relationship. Some research would have told you that the role of Greek merchants in Central Africa and the eastern sudan, like the Lebanese and Syrians in West Africa, is of tremendous cultural/economic importance. T L Miles (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What references? Specifically, what references that might be used to write a fully-developed article? And isn't having this and Greeks in Zimbabwe permanently developing in isolation from one another bound to result in needless duplication? And what do Greek merchants in Sudan and Central Africa have to do with a landlocked country in Southern Africa? - Biruitorul Talk 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't understand what the issue you have is here. This is a stub. The references already in the article establish notability. It doesn't have to be "a fully developed article" whatever that means. And even less do other editors have to provide further references which would prove to you that this topic will meet some additional standard. And very good, you noticed that Zimbabawe is landlocked. How do you supposed Greek merchants in South Africa got there? Or the DRC? In the early 20th century, following the formation of modern Turkey, a large diaspora of Greeks sought business opportunities in Africa, largely in British colonies. Via Egypt and Sudan many ended up in DRC, and from there modern Zambia, Zimbabwe, and SA. Therefore the Greek populations in these nations play an important role, and that has been an factor in the foreign relations of these post-independence nations. This is the sort of information you might discover if you weren't on some mission to delete every unreferenced stub on bilateral relations some obsessive created, and which clearly has really gotten under your skin. Perhaps its time for you to step back here. T L Miles (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, those links do not establish notability. Everyone gives money to poor countries; we're not even told the amount of money and no follow-up articles exist indicating the impact of that money -- that's news, not encyclopedic material. The other link tells us how an Egyptian archbishop met with the President of Zimbabwe; again, news, and unrelated to the purported topic. A fully-developed article isn't a scientific term, but let's just say 3-4 good paragraphs at minimum: these could never be written on the subject. And yes, every article should have at least the potential to become an FA; without at least the existence of sources adduced by its defenders showing such an article could in theory be written, it should either be deleted or merged elsewhere. Regarding the Greek diaspora in Africa: a) we already have Greeks in Zimbabwe, Greeks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc (maybe a single Greeks in Africa would be better); b) no evidence has been produced showing showing these Greeks have played a role in Zimbabwe's foreign relations (I would think her British population would be the more influential). Finally, please comment on content, not contributors. You don't see me nominating Lithuania–Russia relations or Italy–Switzerland relations, even if the same guy created them, do you? I know those have some potential, so I leave them alone. - Biruitorul Talk 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't want these articles developing in isolation, why not merge them? Nerfari (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent example of an almanac like entry for Wikipedia. The topic is both notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost no relationship, as noted above. I read the primary source, and that convinced me. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Greece, Template:Foreign relations of Zimbabwe, Category:Bilateral relations of Greece, and Category:Bilateral relations of Zimbabwe are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 03:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonexistent bilateral relations, which would be non-notable if there was anything to say about them. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears that the main argument for keeping revolves around a Greek Orthodox Bishop. The removing that fact (largely because the Greek Orthodox Church and the country of Greece are separate entities) the relationship does not meet WP:N and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Greece and Zimbabwe if found to be notable on those talk pages, otherwise Delete. Per WP:INSIGNIFICANT, it isn't important whether it is a significant relationship, but a notable one. — BQZip01 — talk 21:15, 14 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.
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

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

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 [71] maybe. In Greek [72] 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, [73][74]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. [75] + [76] + [77] + [78] + [79] 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. [81] 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Greece/2009&oldid=408859107"