Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Luxembourg 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. MBisanz ^talk 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

Bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Latvia relations for recent precedent), and nothing in particular sets this relationship apart. The two don't even have embassies with each other. And not that visits alone would make for evidence of a notable relationship, but the first, by Luxembourg's figurehead monarch, was not a state visit, while the second took place because Luxembourg happened to hold the rotating EU presidency that month, not out of any special love for the Grand Duchy. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these two tiny countries do not have a bilateral relationship that would make a separate article on that relationship sufficiently notable for inclusion here -- to whit, there are no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any detail -- just mentions of brief meetings between ministers, exchanges of pleasantries and the like.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Australia isn't exactly a tiny country. You may want to be more careful with copy/pasting a comment across multiple discussions. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMT i took great care. Australia is something like 55th in terms of population. To be clear: There is no encyclopedically notable relationship between Oz and luxembourg.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously you didn't take enough care or your judgement is terrible. 53rd (from over 208) and over 20 million people is not a tiny country, even if you ignore geographical and economic size. You may be surprised to know that perhaps that residents of one of the larger English-speaking nations (even by population) may appreciate articles on their foreign relations in the English language wiki. Your comment above is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I have seen here in some time. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaahaaaaaa I think he lost his spine! LOL 123.211.169.175 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've got your knickers in a twist over my use of the word "tiny." At any rate, to be clear, "tiny" in this instance is not important to my argument/opinion. I believe China-Luxembourg relations would be equally non-notable and deletable (per: non-notable bilateral relationship). Not all such relations are non-notable -- it doesn't get much tinier than East Timor or the Solomon Islands but Australia-East Timor relations or Australia-Solomon Islands relations are highly notable and would make fine topics for an article. Hopefully someone will write those (and hopefully it won't be just another time-wasting content free stub).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per my new standards. High-level state/foreigh minister visits; embassy on one site; not-so-tiny countries. Both are long-time allies of the United States. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've explained, those were not state visits; it only happened that World Youth Day was in Australia that year, and that Luxembourg was holding the EU presidency that month. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both are long-time allies of the United States. so? why is that a criterion for notability of an article? LibStar (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am open to the possibilities of these articles, I don't see this particular criterion as meaningful DGG (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, change to weak keep. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The "tiny" one that covers a whole continent. —llywrch (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable. By the way I'm also from that tiny country - we manage to squeeze a few Wikipedians in there. Murtoa (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More non-notable Australia–Foobar relations. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to make this a notable relationship. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable relationship. The "High level visits" are staged events anyway in the world of diplomacy and in one case are by figureheads anyway. Nothing notable about this "relationship", either inherently or in actuality. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. Ikip (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The relations may be low-profile, yet they deserve an article nonetheless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Any third party sources to construct an actual article out of this would bolster your argument. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't seriously expect me to personally find sources for any of the thousands of unreferenced articles in Wikipedia which may just as easily end up on AfD instead of being given a chance for expansion? I am not saying the article does not need to be referenced; I am saying that whatever little information that's already in there is a sufficient starting point for further work. Hence, "keep".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:25, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
    - Actually, seriously, that's what he (and most of us) expect. It's been here for four months. No one can find anything. You apparently can't find anything (or say you can't be bothered trying to find something, but you have a "feeling" that someone else later will be able to find something. Or something. It's hard to keep up). To be clear: This topic has not been shown to be even potentially notable via a reliable, indepenendent source. If you don't have such a source to provide, either for the article or here for our perusal, then you must accept that your argument will carry less weight.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am fine with that; thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently notable, I'm afraid. - Pointillist (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'd love to say keep, but honestly, no good argument has as yet been provided.--Aldux (talk) 14:36, 16 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.