Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia–Seychelles 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Seychelles relations

No reliable secondary sources cover these non-notable relations in the depth required for an article of any interest. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete > unreferenced, little evidence to suggest that there can be much notable to go there. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep During the Soviet-era France-Albert René aligned Seychelles with the USSR in many respects, and numerous treaties signed with the USSR are still in force with the Russian Federation. There is material with which to build an article, and several factoids have been included in the article already. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Unreferenced" is a good reason to add an {{unreferenced}} tag, not an AfD tag. I would have opposed deletion for just this reason alone. However, I'm opposing due to the fact that the article has recently been sufficiently expanded.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, May 27, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I suspect the article got a good overhaul after the nomination, but there's enough there that the article feels justified.Tyrenon (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a date there, and meetings about the specific countries. If its kept, I can add more information. Russian Luxembourger (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Seychelles article is extremely thorough, and has lots of "see main article" links. I searched all of them for likely terms, and found nothing (repeat nothing) related to Russia except in Foreign relations of Seychelles where we learn "Seychelles' foreign policy position has placed it generally toward the left of the spectrum within the Non-Aligned Movement. Russia, the United Kingdom, France, India, the People's Republic of China, and Cuba maintain embassies in Victoria" (that is the full extent of Russia's importance). I salute the efforts of those who have found that certain minor events occurred in the 1980s, and that 2008 trade totalled US$6.23 million. However, the information on the Russian tourism implies that nothing notable occurs in the relations between these countries. Where is the secondary source saying that the relations are notable? Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be aware that Wikipedia is not meant to be a source for information to write other articles on. You should never be using a tertiary source for serious research, and never be using self referential arguments. You argument appears to be "It doesn't already exist in Wikipedia in other article space, so it should never appear anywhere in Wikipedia." It is the Johnuniq Self Referential Paradox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral relations is written by editors, some of whom took Belgium-Russia relations, Cyprus-Russia relations and Madagascar-Russia relations to AfD, so unfortunately, that doesn't hold too much weight in these discussions. We don't need secondary sources to state that relations are notable, but secondary sources are used by us editors to ascertain whether a subject is notable. Take this book for example - written by the Africa Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Of course, to find that, one would have to use a funny looking language called Russian, with search terms such as 'Россия Сейшелы отношения' finding plenty of sources which can be used. One can also search for Soviet-Seychelles relations, which indicates that the USSR was a major donour of military aid to Rene, and that Seychelles was instrumental in the USSR-USA rivalry in the Indian Ocean. As to assertions that Russian tourism to Seychelles indicates nothing notable is in my opinion hogwash - tourism is built up with the assistance of governments, such as negotiation of visa-free travel agreements (of which there is one), negotiation of air service agreements (of which there is one), promotion by government-funded tourist promotion departments (of which Seychelles is spending US$5 million in Russia alone on I believe), and it also indicates trade and cultural ties between the countries - tourism doesn't happen overnight and without governmental support, and as Seychelles garners a lot of its GDP from tourism-related industries, tourism between Seychelles and other countries is of course going to be notable in their relations. There is notability here, both in historical and contemporary contexts. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's good. But, if the relations are so notable, why have no editors previously mentioned something about "Seychelles" in Russia (or Soviet Union), or noted something about "Russia" in Seychelles? As I said, the series of Seychelles articles is extremely comprehensive; I take the fact that "Russia" is not mentioned (except trivially in Foreign relations of Seychelles) as a good clue that while there is a relation between Russia and Seychelles, that relation is not notable. For example, if the tourism that you mentioned had in fact never occurred, would anything in the world be signicantly different? The tourism is probably important for the Seychelles; therefore it should be mentioned in one of the Seychelles articles. There is no reason for an encyclopedia to record all possible relationships, unless they are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given political reality, the relations of Russian (and the former USSR) with all third-world countries is notable. Quite enough sources demonstrated. DGG (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considerably developed article. Well referenced. Notability is established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't support delete nor keep as stand alone article but some of the info is really WP:NOT#NEWS. the trade is small even for a small economy of Seychelles. summarise and merge into Foreign relations of Seychelles. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of Seychelles but not Foreign relations of Russia?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because most of the relationship relates to and benefits the Seychelles. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:34, 1 June 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.