Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania–Australia 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. As with the precedent for bilateral relations articles, most are deleted unless there is an enormous significance to their relations, which has not been demonstrated here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Australia relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. This article is based on primary sources. There is nothing that typically makes notable bilateral relations. No resident embassies, never been any meetings between national leaders. The level of trade at USD 3 million a year is very low. The only thing of note is migration but that is covered in Albanian Australians LibStar (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worthwhile keeping articles that talk about bilat relations ... brings the world closer together :) there is a significant population of Albanians in Australia ... perhaps move Albanian Australians here? I would strongly advocate every country should have a page like this with every other country... it is a good and valuable thing. Hopefully in time it can be filled out ... and if it is light ... perhaps that is the key message! Having said that I put in a note that there has been basically no treaty action between the two countries - so your conclusion is valid ... however my opinion is based on principle ... I don't think 3 bullets cover it. Supcmd (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of Bilateral articles. Over 100 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Some of these are a waste of space. This one just crosses the line I think. How is this: If there is a consulate or embassy (updated in article, as Albania has 2), if there is an official ministerial visit and photo, if there are treaties (Australia has bilat treaties with only 79 countries or so -not too many), AND if the article is longer than a paragraph then keep the article ...Supcmd (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no, you're just inventing criteria to suit this article. There was a previous proposal for criteria for such articles but it failed to get consensus. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. The coverage is routine. Are there relations between these two countries? Yes. Is that a reason to have an article? No. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Australia was involved in the War in Albania, Australians are buried there. 4000 Albanians were evacuated to Australia. There are lots of ties. I really don't know why people are so keen on deleting these articles, clearly it means something to some people, perhaps there could be more info put in them, I might try myself. Without these "xxx-yyy relations", it is a pain to edit the "foreign relations of ..." articles as you duplicate info after a while. Someone with sense, and I say this humbly, needs to consider that these articles, as mentioned above, that bring the world together are a good thing. Why delete them? Especially like this one - there are enough useful fact that makes it worthwhile.Supcmd (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't supplied any evidence of actual significant coverage. Secondly, you can't use WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL as reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - we now have: 2 treaties, 2 consulates, Mention of Govt of Albania in Federal Court case, 6 soldiers, WWII Albanians in Australia etc. I think this is a better article now. Thanks for highlighting.Supcmd (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

they're not full consulates. 27000 Australians died in WWII so these 6 that died represent 0.02% of the deaths. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary consuls have much lower status than proper consuls. http://www.hunconsulate.com/faq/honorary-career-consul-difference.html LibStar (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where does it say they are not full consulates? They are fully accredited consulates-general, and appropriately recognised in accordance with the Vienna convention. Albania is .03% of the world, and the soldiers account for about 10% of soldiers listed in Tirana, so the numbers are proportionally significant. Supcmd (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

since you like to talk about proportionally significant. Bilateral trade is USD3 million. Australia's total trade is USD390 billion, so trade with Albania represents a very insignificant 0.0007%. LibStar (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary consuls have limited authorization to act and conduct on behalf of their native country and they usually do not have diplomatic passports, do not enjoy diplomatic immunity and do not have preferential tax treatment. LibStar (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Career consuls are authorized to basically conduct all kind of diplomatic matters and services. They are holders of diplomatic passports, do enjoy diplomatic immunity and do have preferential tax treatment in their accredited countries. There is a big difference. LibStar (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the deaths account for 0.02% of all Australians fighting in WWII, please tell me 0.02% is actually significant. If there was an election and someone got 0.02% vote that would be considered very insignificant. LibStar (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment there aren't even 2 treaties. The second is actually an exchange of notes recognising the original treaty about the same thing. So there is actually only one treaty. You're clutching at straws. LibStar (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

now the article is being padded out with visa details... we don't include these in bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case is strong - this is a valuable article now, and would be deemed so in the assessment of a reasonable reader, and recommend the deletion request be removed. It lists 2 fully accredited consulates, visa information, state ministerial visits, world war 2 and soldiers lost (accounting for 10% of graves/memorials in Tirana the main allied war cemetery there), a court case in the Federal court involving the Albanian Government, covering the extradition of an Albanian prisoner, Australia's assistance with the refugee situation in Albania. If this is not a significant article then we would end up deleting most of Wikipedia ... Supcmd (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

let's see it:

no embassies but 2 Honorary' consulates that do not have full diplomatic status. If it was so important why doesn't Australia set up an embassy?
level of trade is 0.0007% of Australia's total trade. In other words if trade ended tomorrow it would have no noticeable effect on the Australian economy.
No visits ever between national leaders
only one treaty
the Australian federal court deals with hundreds of cases a year with foreign citizens . It's hardly majorly adding to relations
0.02% of all Australians killed in WWII were killed in Albania. Statistically very small.
visa information adds zero to notability. You either need or don't need visa to visit a country.

LibStar (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have participated in several hundred bilateral AfDs. All the ones that have been kept have at least one full embassy posted from another country. The only exception is if hostile relations like north Korea and usa. LibStar (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

honorary consuls do not have full diplomatic powers. The Albanian Ambassador to China in beijing has been accredited to Australia. LibStar (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extraditions are rare - and foreign govts in the Federal Courts - rarer. If you google the case, it made almost every major News site in Australia.Supcmd (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia extradites people regularly. Especially new Zealanders. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why do you still claim there are treaties plural when then is only one? How does visa information add to notability? LibStar (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Albanian Australians is a notable topic, and rightly has an article. There is no evidence that the broader relationship between Australia and Albania is notable. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and also we should note that simply listing dead servicemen does not add to notability which you have correctly removed . LibStar (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - Australia did not play any significant part in the fighting in Albania during World War II (Australia's contribution to the air war over the Balkans was limited to Australians posted to British units, and occasional strikes by the two Australian fighter squadrons stationed in Italy - both groups were operating under British control, with the Australian Government having virtually no say in how they were used). As for this content, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission provides similar, and superior, information in its excellent online database. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do agree that many bilateral relations articles are not worth keeping, but the premise for nominating this one is flawed. There are many bilateral relations articles that are well worth keeping where the countries have not exchanged emissaries and indeed where even there are no formal diplomatic relations, and minimal trade. For example, I doubt anyone would suggest that US-Cuba relations or UK-North Korean relations were not notable before they re-established ambassadorial relations. Deleting this on that basis sets a bad precedent. Bilateral articles should be deleted where the two countries basically have nothing to do with one another, and I think this particular case makes it over the line from that base level. In fact, as a diverse, multicultural, liberal immigrant nation, for Australia people-to-people contacts are a hugely significant part of its external relations, and I would suggest that as a rule of thumb Australia's relations with any country which has contributed a substantial number of immigrants to Australia is prima facie notable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

consensus is well established that hostile relations are notable for bilateral articles. In this case the only aspect of note is already covered in Albanian Australians. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral articles should be deleted where the two countries basically have nothing to do with one another no you're inventing your own criteria. Having some relations does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems very thin, and reminds me of the discussion for Bahamian British, also under deletion review. There would be over 37,000 articles if we tried to pair every country up, and without significant evidence that relations are covered with any regularity in the press, this fails WP:GNG. Also should look at this one. Albania–Australia bilateral treaties. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a world where we are so close to war, where countries are are holding animosity to others, these Wikipedia articles are amongst the most important pieces on the Internet, I feel. It draws countries together through showing the cooperation, shared history etc. 1 graveyard with Australian war veterans is a small bit of history. But it shows the respect for Albanians to Australians after they fought in war. I agree 37,000 is a lot - but hopefully we are no where near that number. I agree with notability guidelines. This article, to a reasonable reader has points of note. Nowhere on the Internet will you find all this information in one place. The extradition case as described above, for example could make its own article (an escaped convict made a life in Australia and claimed mistaken identity), but is better served here (as the Australian, Albanian govts worked together in the Australian Federal court). There is a very good reason why there is no consensus on criteria for deleting these articles. Because not everyone agrees in the wholesale purge of these articles. Maybe in 50 years there will be lots of these. Hopefully by then we will have cheaper storage and better indexing, but for now keep it, because in 50 years it will eventually find its way back in, with more and more notability. We are moving to a world of more information not less. If there are debates on content, save them for the article not the delete page.Supcmd (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2017 (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.