Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Zambia 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. Mfield (Oi!) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Zambia relations

Topic fails general notability requirements, specifically there does not appear to be significant coverage of these countries' relations in sources which reliable, independent, and secondary. None are cited in article, and I couldn't locate in any myself. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is yet another article created by user:Plumoyr without regard for any notability. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wp:N. Also because Zambia doesn't have an embassy in Ireland. (So what if Samantha Mumba has Irish in her? Simply having someone with the blood of both countries doesn't make a relationship between the two notable.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Samantha Mumba and the Anglosphere are trivial connections. The lack of embassy in Ireland means the relations are not important enough to be covered based on the embassies alone. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established The usual way. See [1]The top story is this search - I hate All Africa's archives As Previous [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]][10] - I really don't want to spend more than a few minutes digging up sources, but I can if it comes to that. Wily D 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that Ireland has given a few million for combating AIDS in Zambia is nice, but doesn't quite constitute a notable relationship: rich countries are always giving to poor ones these days. But, if the gifts are indeed notable, there's plenty of scope for mentioning them at (the pretty bad) HIV/AIDS in Zambia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be aware that "notable" is a special jargon, and should be avoided for phrases like that, as they read (in context) as flatly false. Wily D 15:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Unfortunately, the usual way in this type of article is that somebody creates a nothingburger, and someone like WileyD has to do someone else's homework. What I see is that the Irish government has a "Strategic Planning Mission for Zambia" and that it has donated several million dollars specifically earmarked for Zambia. If that's not evidence of relations between Ireland and Zambia, I'm not sure what would be. Perhaps someone can nominate United States – Zambia relations, if foreign aid isn't considered a relationship. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, not to imply anything about Yilloslime's google skills but a few minutes' search reveals that Zambia is one of Ireland's priority aid recipients and their relationship goes back to missionary schools established during the colonial era. Hilary T (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is....? Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With thanks to Wily-D for confirming notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If diplomatic relations are not notable, then why have Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland and Template:Foreign relations of Zambia? As long as Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Bilateral relations of Zambia are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing that we do look at these case by case. If it came down to an "all or nothing" choice, most of us, including I, would opt for the latter. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: despite the motivations of the creator of the article, nation states spill a lot of ink over these things, even when, as poor countries, they can't afford to open embassies. This article in particular has third party references which are significant (and some exclusive), and thus passes the current Notability guidelines. T L Miles (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind just confirming to us that you have actually read the discussion so far? Hilary T (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and, in a similar vein, did you read the 8 other discussions you just spammed with the exact same vote? Hilary T (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read all nine articles (given their length it wasn't hard to do) and found that the same argument works for each and every one of them, which is why I didn't waste my time typing out the same thing in slightly different wording. I stand by my reasoning as stated. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK so that's an admission that you haven't read the discussions then? Hilary T (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've read the article and the nomination and voiced my support of it for the reasons stated, which I still stand by. If you have a point to make about how I do things, stop beating around the bush and make it. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't read the discussions, did you? This is a very simple question. Try "yes" or "no". Hilary T (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I am satisfied that notability has been established by WilyD. --can dle •wicke 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, a bit disturbed that this has come about when the article has only been in existence for less than two months. What is the difference between relations of these two countries and any other two which have articles for far longer? --can dle •wicke 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference is that they're far longer. Also, it has not been established that anything that, even in theory, could be placed into articles such as this could not be equally covered in, say, the "Foreign relations of..." articles referenced within this articles "See also" section, or in articles on the history of the two nations in question if such a diplomatic incident was worthy of inclusion. The mere establishment of a bureaucracy in another country is hardly noteworthy. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:59, 6 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.