Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Iceland 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Iceland relations[edit]

another random country pairing. note this: It is estimated that around 70 Australians are currently living in Iceland. Tourist traffic in both directions is low. There is a small Icelandic community in Australia of around 450 people. http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/iceland/iceland_brief.html LibStar (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability of subject not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, as evidenced by non-resident or simply non-existent ambassadors. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as usual, no substantive notability has been demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another inappropriate one among the articles. DGG (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources establish this as a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither low numbers of tourists or resident nationals make for a non-notable relationship. Nor does low trade, low defence links etc. etc. Nor does the size of the nations involved; even "tiny" nations like Australia can have notable bilateral foreign relations (This was seriously put up as a ground for deletion in an earlier discussion on a similar article!). All of these claims are entirely irrelevant and subjective. Notability is established through reliable sources created by people willing to write on the subject. While these have not been found, the nomination does not even seem to suggest that sources have been looked for. There is a real sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in these nominations, which is not a ground for deletion. I wonder how much thought is going into the deletion discussions for these articles and how much of it is cookie cutter responses. Each article should be considered on its merits and this rush to delete needs some tempering. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To accuse me of crusade is to accuse me of acting in bad faith. I have nominated a few of these relation articles but not all. Consistent with WP policy they are up for discussion for consensus to keep or delete. Seems like you WP:ILIKEIT without providing any reliable sources to back it up. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused anybody of anything, you are not the only one on a quest to delete these articles at the moment. Nor I have said this article should be kept (my edit comment of keep was in error, I merely meant to make a a comment. Check the diff if you like, my comment was not marked with Keep.). Not sure how that equates to "I like it". My point stands, the nomination for deletion is subjective, contains systemic bias and does not actually address any reason for why the article should be deleted under Wikipedia's deletion policy. If the size of resident populations etc. is relevant then what is your magic figure? 5,000, 10,000, 100,000? If there are relevant reliable sources then the article should be kept; if not then it should be deleted. None of this is actually addressed in the nomination for deletion, nor does there seem to have been any effort whatsoever to assess the notability of the articles under that rationale. The standard response appears to be "Delete" Not notable" without any evidence of thought whatsoever. This is poor form. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More non-notable Australia–Foobar relations. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N. A Google search of 'Australia Iceland' only turned up a single incident (a joint Australian-Iceland-United States geothermal technology sharing agreement: [1] is an example). As Australia is English-speaking country and Iceland is a developed country I don't think that systematic bias is a problem here as Wikipedia covers both countries in depth. Nick-D (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, there is a discussion about a general policy on such articles. --Tone 21:24, 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.