Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar–San Marino relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. A Traintalk 08:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar–San Marino relations

[edit]
Qatar–San Marino relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There aren't significant bi-lateral relations between these countries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, I'm sorry, I'm still working on that article. there are signficant to all of the articles about bilateral relations, at least in hebrew. there are articles about Greece-Liechtenstein relations, Greece-Monaco relations and that article. I think your policy is accepting all of these articles. I can to translate more about the relations from hebrew, but don't delete this. Good Evening. Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 17:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BiggestSataniaFanboy89, Jan CZ, LibStar please watch the article now, you're still thinking that the article should be deleted? Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 15:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 18:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps off-topic, and I have no opinion on deletion, but I thought it relevant to point out that a recent expansion of the article was a copyright violation (nearly every paragraph taken verbatim from the source cited). I've removed that, which took the article back to being very brief. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources to fulfill notability. A lot of state visits to show connection between the two countries. If the two countries have signed any agreement, should be listed out.Tart (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there have been no state visits whatsoever. state visits mean national leaders visiting another country. LibStar (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Antonella Mulroni was also the captain regent of San Marino, she visited in Qatar as Minister of Foreign affairs and she met Emir Qatar, if this is not state visit, what is it? Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 04:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that's a ministerial not a state visit. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San_Marino%E2%80%93United_States_relations , there are actually more things happening with Qatar than with the US. If we kindly avoid US-centric, to keep San Marino-US relations is also a definitely yes to keep Qatar-San Marino.Tart (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no. that's definitely a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. in fact, I've nominated it again for its dubious notability. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reasonsTart (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disregarding the pure votes, we don't have sufficient discussion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely per those advocating same above. Pomp and circumstance (parts of this article read as though they're from official press releases, even after the removal of the copyvio mentioned) aside, this really is an article about something which doesn't actually happen on any meaningful level. Not overly surprising, to be honest, as I doubt there'd be much call for extensive relations here. The fact that there are articles about similar pairs of states in other language editions of Wikipedia is a special form of the OTHERSTUFF argument, as notability standards do differ among projects, to say nothing of the willingness of editors to clear things like this up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that the population of San Marino would fit inside a large stadium their relations with a small country on another continent aren't likely to be impressive, and the sources for the article are press releases and the like reporting diplomats talking to each other. Doesn't meet notability standards. Hut 8.5 21:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
low population should not be a reason for deletion of articles.Tart (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in itself, no, but as I said the source coverage here isn't enough to support an article. The low populations are likely to be the reason for that. Hut 8.5 17:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until such time a notable amount of interaction happens between these two governments. Presently the article states that:
1) relations between the governments are "good and friendly" (no source provided - probably because it is not noteworthy enough to record)
2) Qatar does not have a resident ambassador in San Marino (hardly a sign of advanced interaction between the two states)
3) Citizens of San Marino require a visa to enter Qatar (again, hardly a sign of advanced interaction between the two states)
4) There have been several high level meetings where the agenda items were to discover reasons for more meetings and co-operation (none of these meetings are notable)
5) There is an income tax treaty that has been signed by the two states (This alone is notable, but not enough to build a whole encyclopedia article on)

This is not a reflection of the low populations, but the low interactions between the two states. Loopy30 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loopy30
1) relations between the goverments ar "good and friendly". (I have to write it different, I will change that)
2) "Qatar doesn't have a resident ambassador in San Marino." So? there is only three embassies in San Marino; Embassy of the Holy See, Embassy of Italy and Embassy of the sovereign order of malta. the USA and the UK don't have even a consulate there.
3) "Citizens of San Marino require a visa to enter Qatar" So what? there are only five countries that their citizens not require a visa to enter Qatar. Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 04:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the population number is no argument; the article is longer than most Iranian villages existing as microstubs, it is sufficiently referenced and important is that all diplomatic relations between all countries should have an article, albeit a stub, for completeness. It doesn't hurt leaving this start class article here, it is notable for the simple existence of those relations that will always exist. With the World Cup coming in 2022 and San Marino participating in the new set-up of the Nations League in football there may even be more relation between the two countries in the near future. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the World Cup coming in 2022 and San Marino participating in the new set-up of the Nations League in football there may even be more relation between the two countries in the near future. that is pure WP:CRYSTAL and to say it adds to relations is pure WP:SYNTH. the existence of relations doesn't guarantee a bilateral article as hundreds have been deleted. lastly your WP:NOHARM argument is invalid too. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sports is definitely part of international relations without doubt. We should be more open mind on cultural relations and soft power. After all, international relations is not like pure science and counts only on hard data. Flexibility is needed on articles to illustrate the full picture on social science.Tart (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do these countries have any sporting relations at all? The article doesn't say that they do and no kind of evidence has been provided here. The comment from Tisquesusa is extremely unlikely speculation, San Marino have one of the worst football teams in the world and are very unlikely to qualify for the World Cup, and the two countries cannot meet in the UEFA Nations League because that only comprises European teams. Even if that wasn't the case and the countries did occasionally play football against each other it certainly doesn't justify an article. Hut 8.5 17:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is absolutely no sporting relations. Tart is just clutching at straws to suggest this adds to notability to these 2 countries relations. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "clutching at straws" shows problem in WP:NPV, WP:OR and is not WP:V, thus has ruined the testimony by this editor. Invalid testimony should be ruled out from evidence from a judicial view. I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San_Marino%E2%80%93United_States_relations , there are actually more things happening with Qatar than with the US. If we kindly avoid US-centric, to keep San Marino-US relations is also a definitely yes to keep Qatar-San Marino.Tart (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the fact that the policies you cite deal with article content, and that AfD is hardly a judicial process, it may be important to note here that the San-Marino-US article was closed as "no consensus" with three contributions (including the nomination), which wouldn't be a precedent even if such things existed in situations like this. Moreover, the fact that article X exists doesn't mean than article Y automatically gets a free pass. If the term "clutching at straws" is sufficiently objectionable, though, might I reiterate LibStar's earlier reference to WP:CRYSTAL, since the World Cup won't be in Qatar for more than 4 years (and San Marino doesn't exactly give any indication of being a team on the verge of international glory). The reference to the Nations League is completely irrelevant, as indicated. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your view but if we look at other pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Spain_relations and see international relations pages with much fewer information than the subject page have survived for long, we can see the de facto standard of wiki bilateral relations page and thus should keep our standard as the same. Otherwise, it is like a discrimination against Qatar or San Marino or other small states.Tart (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't "see the de facto standard" of any such thing. What we see is an article which is about a similar topic to the one currently under discussion. We happen, in this instance, to see an article with a tag indicating that there's additional information at the German Wikipedia which could help to expand what is currently written in the English version (a quick check of that article suggests there's masses of such information, and I'd happily get started translating it right away if I weren't snowed under with real-world commitments). Even if we didn't see that tag and the oodles of content over at de-wikipedia, all we'd see is evidence that there wasn't a current AfD, PROD or CSD tag on the article you've cited, and you, I or anyone else would be well within our rights to put one there. We'd be similarly within our rights now, come to think of it, but it probably wouldn't go so well given the extra information available. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread at WP:VPP that is relevant to this AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qatar–San_Marino_relations&oldid=1068999191"