Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel–Marshall Islands 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. henrik•talk 06:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Marshall Islands relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Well-written article, the results of which probably should be "somewhere." But votes in the General Assembly do not constitute "diplomatic relations." They are simply votes. No more than the parliamentarian from Leeds (of a different party) supporting the position of the delegate from Liverpool. Has nothing to do with Leeds-Liverpool relations necessarily! If each vote someplace were chronicled as "relations" between the two countries, states or cities involved, it would take another several million articles. Not too sure of the value. Student7 (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete nicely put above. Voting in support in the UN does not equate to notable bilateral relations. No evidence of trade, agreement, high level visits. Do Israelis go to Marshall islands for holidays? LibStar (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look now. There are now refs reflecting article coverage of a highest level visit -- in 2005 by Marshall Islands President Kessai Hesa Note -- to Israel, as well as other RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Regardless of the current contents of the article, there are diplomatic relations between the countries. Michael Ronen is the Israeli ambassador to the 13 Pacific Islands, including the Marshall Islands. As part of a series about bilateral relations, this article is automatically notable. Marokwitz (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note. The article was rewritten. Marokwitz (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral articles are not automatically notable, over 100 have been deleted. Is the ambassador a resident ambassador? I don't think so. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article after the rewrite? Marokwitz (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, just re-read it. It doesn't seem like the same article anymore. Not terrifically persuasive, but definitely not the low-level stuff it was before. Student7 (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify, do you still think the article should be deleted in its present improved state, or not? Marokwitz (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was very helpful to me. Why delete it if you don't have to? It'll probably be helpful to someone else sometime as well. They won't have to go around to a bunch of random websites before looking a wikipedia and finding all the information they just collected in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.76.157 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which says:
    If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context.
Delete - there is no source —none—actually covering relations between Israel and the Marshall Islands. There are a handful of mentions of the extremely limited interactions of these two states, which one user has strained rather too hard to find by trawling Google Books snippets, but nothing this encyclopedia would normally take notice of. We don't normally document purchases of water desalination plants, openings of poultry projects, sending of citrus experts or of ophthalmologists, or perfunctory statements of friendly relations. For relations that actually matter (Israel–Jordan relations, Iran–Israel relations, Germany–Israel relations, etc) it would be absurd to set the bar so low, and the only reason that's being attempted here is that there's nothing of substance to this relationship, so we have to content ourselves with trivia. That always happens when the notability of such a topic isn't immediately obvious from an abundance of sources — such as here.
Now, consistent support at the General Assembly is marginally relevant. And guess what? It's duly noted in the proper place. No more is needed. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriate article on notable subject, well-referenced, and in keeping with hundreds (Perhaps thousands? Some countries alone have hundreds) of parallel articles at the Project that can be found at Category:Bilateral relations.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is a notable subject, why has not one third-party source actually addressed the subject as such? (Instances where Israel and the Marshall Islands happen to have interacted, and where these were then deemed by a Wikipedian to be evidence of "relations", don't count.)
- Related to the above—"well-referenced" to what end? In other words, bringing in trivia about how one country helped open a poultry plant in the other—trivia that this encyclopedia would never normally notice, and only takes into account now as part of this pointless exercise in "watch me do this"—does not validate an article on anything, much as some may pretend it does. References need to back up a topic that published sources outside Wikipedia have noticed exists; this is not the case here.
- See WP:WAX: just because we have articles on bilateral relations that actually are notable (say, Egypt–Israel relations) does not imply all such pairings are notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "not one third party source" addressed the subject as such is not accurate. For starters -- take a look at the article in The Jerusalem Post, entitled "Marshall Islands proud to support Israel", devoted entirely to this subject. And the articles about the 2005 state visit of Marshall Islands President Kessai Note to Israel. Then there is a host of other RS coverage, and reference to the support by the Marshall Islands for Israel -- often by notable people, including U.S. Congressmen and Israel's Ambassador to the UN, as well as by Iran's Press TV. And as to WAX -- it is entirely appropriate in these circumstances to refer to the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of parallel articles. As the essay itself makes clear: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument."--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was almost convinced until I read Biruitorul's analysis. Being mentioned in the Jerusalem Post or the Marshall Island Times, would not truly be the type of WP:RS and secondary source we would like to see here. We know it happened. But it does seem to lack notability, which neither Jerusalem nor the MI would naturally care about, being two small nations, one of which nearly everyone hates, the other being a small nation that almost no one cares about! (Sorry). Student7 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as clear as I might be as to your point. The article reflects multiple RS coverage. Are you asserting that the Jerusalem Post is not an RS? If so, on what basis? Are you basing your position on your view that "nearly everyone hates" one of the nations?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Desalinization plants? Golly. We're getting a bit desperate for material if we're down to that. There's probably 10,000 of them in existence. Student7 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on the indicia of notability that I pointed you to above. The article in The Jerusalem Post, entitled "Marshall Islands proud to support Israel", devoted entirely to this subject. The articles about the 2005 state visit of Marshall Islands President Kessai Note to Israel. The articles in Iran's Press TV. The references to the support by the Marshall Islands for Israel by U.S. Congressmen and Israel's Ambassador to the UN.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the English, Canadians, Australians, or anybody in some other language than English, thought this was news besides the predictable pov plaudits from MI, US, and Israel, it would be great. Not debatable as to fact. Just debatable as to importance. Sources are almost notoriously pov. Student7 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So -- you believe that US and Israeli and Marshall Islands RSs do not count, towards notability?--Epeefleche (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the MI and Israeli refs are more like company publications. Mandatory articles. I must have missed the US ref. If it was mentioned in some desalinization journal, that is more a matter of a MI article, rather than "International relations."
Keep as rewritten. I agree with Epeefleche her that there are sources. Although some articles of this type have indeed been deleted, most have been kept. The argument seems to be that since we have deleted some articles on motion pictures, and therefore should delete them all, (Actually, I think those deletions were most of them rather rash, and anyone prepared to work with printed sources could find material.) DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a topic of interest and problems that exist in the article can be fixed. Zero^talk 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The second part ("Trade and aid") is at the fringe of original synthesis and it might be an improvement to the article to blank it, but the first part has a non-fringe topic (diplomatic relations between two states, about which non-trivial sources exist). Were the two states minnows, I might hesitate, but I am nearly sure that the bilateral relations between Israel (or Russia, or Iran, or Brazil, or any diplomatically important country) and any other state are an admissible topic. French Tourist (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements since nomination and due to general notability of international relations involving major countries, such as Israel, which due to the Middle East conflicts is either supported or condemned by just about all other countries sooner or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temporary for Bonaparte (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 February 2012 (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.