Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil–Vietnam relations

This is yet another stub in a long line of stugs (all unsourced) being created about non-notable international "relationships." There are no sources that discuss the Brazil-Vietnamese relationship in depth, and anything of note that happens between the two countries (i can find nothing but cordial exchanges at conferences and some bog-standard trade stuff) can be mentioned in articles about those counties, i.e. Foreign relations of Brazil and Foreign relations of Vietnam). I would also like some support from other editors for stopping the serial creation of unsources stubs; the encyclopedia has enough unsourced articles as it is. Adding more with little hope of expansion is damaging. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notabile in the usual way. I see no argument for this being a highly exception article that needs a highly unusual treatment.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and so forth. Highly notable and encyclopaedic, as we would expect. Wily D 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scope of the article is broader than can be represented by a handful of news articles spanning a mere five years (barely a quarter of the time relations have been established, according to the article), some of which are no more than political backscratching at the UN or routine state visits and several of which cover the same event. Simply not notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there arethis many news articles for just 5 years, then certainly there will be enough material for an article. DGG (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fucking edit conflict! Anyway, in trying to expand on WilyD's citations, most of the articles cited show cooperation on several levels between the two nations. To me, it does not matter whether the extent of the cooperation is smaller in comparison to someone else's cooperation (not that the President of Vietnam has visited the White House). The gist of the articles is that trade between Brazil and Vietnam has increased over the last several years, and that there have been multiple state visits between the presidents of Brazil and Vietnam in the last several years. The issue is whether this is notable enough for its own article. I believe that the fact that the two nations have been cooperating on many levels demonstrates that the relations between the two are notable; some will disagree, but we're all entitled to an opinion. Mandsford (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, I think the most significant is "Vietnam, Brazil agree to boost multi-faceted ties", a 2008 article, shows that the combined trade rose from $43 million in 2002 to $323 million in 2007 and is projected to reach $1 billion in 2010. Other articles reflect meetings between leaders in 2004, 2006 and 2007. Ideally, an "X-nation/Y-nation" article should only be created if the two countries are actually conferring with each other. When it is established that there is something to write home about, then, ideally, an article serves its purpose if it can keep the reader accurately informed. Mandsford (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, A pickup in Xinhua, the Chinese government's official state news agency (propaganda), of an article in the Vietnam News, the english language outlet of the Vietnamese government's official press service (propaganda). Is this really the most significant of those?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to support the proposal for preventing the creation of unsourced stubs, or unsourced articles of any kind.Hilary T (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Xinhua article and others show that we have reliable third party sources available. Also I don't see how it is Propaganda, it is from a news outlet outside of Vietnam and whether or not it is state run has nothing to do with its facts. So per WP:RS I go keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the arguments for keeping this stub, Xinhua, an official press organ of the Chinese State (which is not known for accuracy and fact checking) is unreliable for almost everything on wikipedia. It has been called the "worlds biggest propaganda agency" (reporters without borders), its directors are appointed by the Communist Party of China's Propaganda Department and it is empowered to censor international news reports distributed in China. It is in a classic, anachronistic sense, a propaganda organ. As is the Vietnam News. They do not have any reputation for fact checking and accuracy; in fact, they have reputations for deception, censorship and fabrication. Whatever the course of this AFD, to hold up these propaganda organs as reliable sources is to fully misunderstand why some news outlets are trusted, and others are not. To marcusmax -- to write whether a newspaper is controlled by a government or not "has nothing to do with the facts" is an unfortunate misunderstanding of how to evaluate accuracy and reliability in reporting. Here's a pro-tip: State Press agencies are typically far less reliable than independent news outlets with their own editorial controls.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other reliable sources than just the one from Xinhua as Willy D shows with his links. Those in a way can help verify relationships between the two countries. ~~Might I add that if you are quoting me on your userpage I will even sign for you.~~ -Marcusmax(speak) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that was a bit uncivil of me. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to meet WP:N, though it would be good if the material in the above references was incorporated into the article (and not just as a list of links). Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The many news articles serve as reliable 3rd party sources which satisfy WP:N. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep External sources provided clearly cover WP:RS and WP:N. This one seems pretty clear cut. I know its frustrating with all the international relations stubs created, but look at which one you nominate next time- because this one isn't even close to being a delete. -M^ask? 05:31, 13 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.