Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Mexico relations (2nd nomination)

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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Mexico relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. this was previously deleted and I don't see the re-creation much of an improvement. the two agreements between the countries are minor eg "touristic cooperation". the statement in the article regarding a large Cypriot community is not in the actual reference given. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and previous AfD. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what next? Kiribati-Oman relations? Fiji-Niger relations? These are just silly unless there is some notable bilateral agreement or significant trade relationship. Stalwart111 00:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMHO bilateral relations are always intrinsically notable, and they can be almost always sourced reliably. Even the very fact that the relationship is factually trivial is an interesting information to the reader, while the absence of the article does not imply so: it just leaves the reader in the dark. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is no intrinsic notability to bilateral relations. In fact several 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thanks to your efforts too, unfortunately. I consider such deletions a damage to the encyclopedia. I know I'm in a minority here, but I stand by my position. Have a nice day erasing knowledge. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some value in your ad-hom rebuttal if this were "knowledge". It's not. Like many similar articles which have been deleted (by community consensus, not individual fiat, by the way) it's a couple of random, unrelated and unimportant diplomatic niceties synthesised together to suggest some form of broad, meaningful relationship between two countries that simply doesn't exist. I believe these articles actually devalue other articles that cover genuinely notable bilateral relationships between neighbours, important trade partners and diplomatic or military combatants. Stalwart111 10:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We just disagree on what constitutes knowledge. For example that they are "unimportant" is at least as subjective as me thinking they're never "unimportant". As I said above, for me even stating "There is no relevant relationship between these countries, just these little trivia" is, in my humble opinion, a piece of critical knowledge: after reading that I can say "Oh well, now I know that A and B have no meaningful relationships". But a missing article is just a hole, it doesn't tell me anything: if I don't find an article, as a reader, I am not led to think "Well, they have no meaningful relationship", I just wonder what could be there. Maybe they have some important relationship but nobody bothered to write the article? I know that there is consensus for many of these deletions -in fact I stated I am in a minority and I know it well. But I still think people should think twice before !voting to delete these articles, because (at least in my opinion) the rationale given is only superficially meaningful -that's why I argue. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if there are 193 Member states of the United Nations, you think we should have an article for the relations between country a and each of the other 192 countries? Then country b and each of the remaining 191, and so on? That's a lot of articles just to fill in holes for people who, "wonder what could be there". You seem to be suggesting we should be creating articles just to let readers know there was nothing worth creating an article for. What next? Species interaction articles? Rabbit-Fish interactions? I reckon I could synth together a lovely article about adjoining habitats or piranahs that eat rabbits occasionally. We could get more specific - Flamingo-Squirrel interactions. I wonder... Maybe they have some important relationship but nobody bothered to write the article? See what I mean? Stalwart111 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you mean it as a reductio ad absurdum but yes, I exactly and completely seriously think we should allow, in theory, the whole 193*193=37249 possible relationship articles, provided there is some source to get content from. The species interactions you use as whimsical analogy may even have a point: after all, ecological network are not trivial and there may well be real interactions between apparently unrelated species like flamingoes and squirrels. If sources would be found, why not. But anyway they're different beasts: while not all species act to have relations with other species, most nations have some sort of official, sourced kind of contact with most others, and people who happen to live in nation A, for example, may very well be interested about their relationship with nation B. I understand you dismiss this kind of concern, but I like to think it is more important to care about the potential needs of our readers than about what editors feel subjectively interesting. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well it's obviously going to be a few less than 37,000 assuming we can redirect Oman-Kiribati relations to Kiribati-Oman relations, but yeah, absurdum indeed. Obviously I don't agree, but you are entitled to hold your view, no matter how absurd the potential results. But you should understand others don't see their work here as "erasing knowledge" and ad-homs suggesting as much aren't very civil. Stalwart111 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That this is erasing knowledge it is a fact (isn't this a deletion discussion for a sourced article?) that this is erasing worthwile knowledge or unworthy knowledge is the matter where opinions diverge. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, per User: Stalwart111, per all the above, per previous AfD. Indeed many polities have mutual embassies, but the existence of these does not indicate or confer notability.Curb Chain (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure if it is more pointless to create vapid X-Y Relations articles like this or to chase them down trying to annihilate them like Captain Ahab trying to whack albino cetaceans. Maybe it's a tie. That said, this particular one fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom and User:Stalwart111 non notable relationship between the two countries Finnegas (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Carrite took the words right out of my mouth. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:28, 4 June 2013 (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.