Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guinea-Bissau–Russia relations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of article improvements. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea-Bissau–Russia relations

even though both countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of notable bilateral relations, [1]. yes there are passing mentions like the Russian foreign ministry being concerned about the situation in Guinea-Bissau (but many countries have had the same concerns), there was some violence near the Russian Embassy and a visit by Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations but these do not make for notable bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Refer to Kuwait–Russia relations for an example of what is valid for inclusion in such articles. As Guinea-Bissau was somewhat aligned to the USSR, their is more than enough notable information with which to build an article.[2][3] --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nominating it because it's a stub, I'm nominating it because of a lack of significant third party coverage. not sure why you're pointing out an article that is far far superior to this? I am an experienced editor. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I showed that article because that article was merged (without discussion) based upon it not being a notable topic, obviously without a single search being performed to see if it would be notable. And it is the same case here. A search for "PAIGC+soviet" would soon reveal that Soviet-support for the PAIGC against the Portuguese was instrumental in Guinea-Bissau gaining independence, bringing the country into the Soviet sphere of influence.[4] There is more than enough to build this WP:STUB into an article in due course. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - There is already enough information here for a stub to be built upon. - Epson291 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you have to be joking; Sovs were the main backers of PAIGC and GB was a Soviet satellite. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K2 Aymatth2 (talk)
Keep K2 --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous Soviet relations should be discounted since the Soviet Union was an entirely different country. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me artificial to segment these relations articles that way -- should we segment South African international relations into pre-Apartheid, Apartheid and post-Apartheid. Seems excessive. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the article on the United States starts in the 1600s. The article on Italy starts "200,000 years ago". This isn't about whatever the modern name of the country is, or the contemporary government. Every reference work treats the land as the topic, not the modern name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAN, I don't expect you to agree with me about anything, ever. That's a given. But your examples are faulty. Yes, the US article begins where it does, but articles about the US relations with most countries don't. If we use your line of reasoning, we'd start saying that since the US was once part of the UK, an article about the relations between the UK and the Philippines should automatically be notable based on everything in the US relations with them. The history of Italy should go back before formation of the country, it is part of their history. However relations are really between governments and when those governments change drastically, as happened in the Soviet Union, there should be a break in the relationship timeline. To me, this is like a restaurant closing and another one moving into its place, but you still think the old Chinese restaurants menu should be valid on the new Chinese restaurant because they both occupied the same building. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your example itself is faulty. Consider User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations which I am working on. There is clearly a link between the relations of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russia. In terms of the Soviet Union, there should be no break because the international community regards Russia as the successor state to the Soviet Union, and therefore, Russia took on all treaties, responsibilities and 'debts' of the Soviet Union. Consider the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes which was signed in 2007, this agreement replaced the inforce agreement Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy which was signed by the Soviet Union and Australia in 1990. It is absolutely impossible to consider the foreign relations of Russia without considering the foreign relations of the state of which it is the successor state (Soviet Union), and the relations of the 'state' of which it is not a legal successor, but is widely regarded as its historical successor (Russian Empire). Based upon the argument you have presented, the Australian article I have linked to would, when I place it in mainspace in due course, should be swiftly be taken to AfD. If such a thing were to occur, I would expect such an AfD to be laughed down, because there is clearly links between the historical forms of Russia, and this is clearly recognised by the Russian and Australian governments, media, scholars and authors. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in not called "Guinea-Bissau–Russia government relations". You wrote: "If we use your line of reasoning, we'd start saying that since the US was once part of the UK, an article about the relations between the UK and the Philippines should automatically be notable based on everything in the US relations with them." I haven't a clue where that came from, I wrote: "Every reference work treats the land as the topic", and that is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. The article is about the land, not the present or past governments. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Russavia & Bigdaddy. This was one of the battlefields of the Cold War, fought between US & Soviet proxies (Portugal & the PAIGC, respectively). -- llywrch (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty to say about the relations between these countries, and the article is well sourced. Fences&Windows 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a notable subject of inter-state relations (scale large enough) covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. you've posted this identical comment on several bilateral AfDs. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you serially nominated for deletion several related articles. All of them have single general notability point, so I stated it as argument, as it really exists in all cases. I felt no need to detalize each case. It's up to admin whether to avoid it. --ssr (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason to delete this article. There is enough reliably sourced material in the page to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 23 July 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.

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument