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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas–Russia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

totally random combination with non resident embassies. any useful info can easily be contained in Foreign relations of the Bahamas. only coverage is of 2004 diplomatic recognition otherwise multilateral. [1] I think these 2 countries only meet at UN meetings? not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations in any detail Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Russia is represented in the Bahamas through its embassy in New York." Russia doesn't even have an embassy in New York. It has a mission to the UN and a consulate-general but the embassy is in Washington, D.C. There are direct flights from New York to the Bahamas daily but I don't think that constitutes bilateral relations between Russia and the Bahamas, either. Drawn Some (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't relevant, the US and Cuba don't have embassies or direct flights. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete given the absence of reliable sources that address this topic and the lack of interest the two states have with tending a bilateral relationship as demonstrated by the absensce of ambassadorial exchange.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No plausible reasoning to connect the two. Collect (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bahamas, strictly speaking, are still within top ten or even five "investors" in Russia, but don't ask me where they've got the moneys... I'd suggest redirecting it to Corporate inversion, a perfect example, however, this article only considers tax issues which are not the case here. NVO (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article only has some announcements of diplomatic contacts. It needs some notable treaty or relationship to be kept. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have now added references and additional information at the article to address the issues listed above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and therefore it does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic entirely fabricated by creator and "rescuer(s)", from a random collection of factoids. Nothing there is validated by outside research, just random news items that happen to mention the two countries. Awful editing, contrived rationale, absurd inclusionist agenda. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia and factoids are not Wikipedia concepts. Wikipedia recognizes information from reliable sources. "BT MyPlace is a service that dynamically delivers content and information to people, based on their personal preferences and location." and "Dante María Caputo (b. Buenos Aires, 25 November 1943) is an Argentine academic, diplomat and politician, who served as foreign minister to President Raúl Alfonsín." are random facts. I used the random article button to collect them. Can you discern the difference? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe I have answered to this style of faulty analogy and special pleading too many times by now, Richard. Seriously, I'm tired. Dahn (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, okay, one last time: water is notable, and its existence documented; so is mucus; so are bilirubin, fat and several other things, all of which are likely to be found in one of my stools. Should I proceed to write an article about my stool? As for factoids etc. and how they relate to wikipedia rules, you were many times pointed to to WP:N (and WP:GNG), WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. It's all there. Dahn (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not having seen previous discussions being referred to, I am running a risk of repeating the arguments, but I'm gonna try anyway, as I believe it is Dahn's analogy that is faulty. No, you should not write an article about your stool. We should, however, have an article about stool in general.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:32, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

No, the article corresponding to stool in general would be this one. I usually put some thought into my analogies. Dahn (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like US-Canada relations are the only ones that can barely hope to survive these ridiculous deletion sprees these days. The recent expansion is more than sufficient to keep this article, even though it may not yet be developed up to its full potential.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:41, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

So you're basically telling us that the article should be kept because others exist. Dahn (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am basically trying to say that the article should be expanded by people who know the subject, not deleted by folks who don't know squat about it. Since when has going on deletion rampage become the ultimate solution for quality improvement? I see it only as ignorance trying to undermine the encyclopedia. Lame excuses do not help either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I get it, you're one of the users who think that, once the article exists, it should never be deleted. Because it exists. And, if you want to talk about what's "ignorant" and what's "lame": copy-pasting google results that match two terms is not only not a substitute for research, sourcing, or coverage of a real-life phenomenon. Dahn (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's you who doesn't get it. Once the article exists, it should be carefully reviewed (note the emphasis) and considered. Yes, it's possible the article could be started as crap, but it's not a reason to send it straight to AfD without even attempting to investigate if the subject has a potential or any salvageable pieces. One, of course, cannot be an expert in everything, but that is exactly why we have all those WikiProjects available—one can seek all kinds of help there. It's obvious that some bilateral relations are more notable than the other (and I myself voted "delete" in some instances—a shocker, eh?), but submitting an AfD based on a gut feeling and the results of a few google hits (you knew I was going to pass this one back to you, right? :)) is nothing short of wikisabotage in my book. Just so you know, when I say "keep", I don't mean "keep forever", I mean "give it a chance for expansion", because, based on what I see, the expansion potential is out there. What the reason you folks want to get rid of these articles as soon as possible and not a moment later is, I have no idea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:19, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

One thing: the burden of proving notability rests with those who support the article, not with those who contest it. Placing trust in some speculative future is not only ridiculous, it is detrimental to the project. The only "gut feeling" here is that of those "keep" voters who have not only claimed sources are bound to show up around the corner, but who have effectively attempted to manipulate the other editors by synthetizing a flood of mind-numbing nonsense and presenting it as effective "rescue". That is what I would call "wikisabotage". And, once more and hopefully for the final time: in the unlikely and speculative eventuality that some of these topics turn out as "important" under transparent and proper definitions, the articles can be revived from redirects or even thin air. As for your final assertion, two can play at that game: I can't for the love of me imagine what reason there is behind seeing these nonsense articles surfacing and proliferating. The only justification I keep hearing over and over is the question "why not?", which was shown to be invalidated by several guidelines, and which is the staple of an untenable inclusionist agenda. Dahn (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for every person, obviously, but for me, personally, the first most logical place to look up information about the relations between countries X and Y is, you guessed it, the article titled "X-Y relations". When I started planning a Cyprus vacation for my relatives in Russia, one of the first articles I looked up was Cyprus–Russia relations. What I found was this pitiful stub, yet it still proved a surprisingly useful starting point for further research (and, incidentally, it was the first article where I learned of the bilateral relations article deletion carnage). For the love of cheese I can't fathom why anyone would want to deny this information to our readers. Even if the relations are minimal, informing readers of this fact is still of benefit. Notability issues seem to be the focus of each and every one of these AfDs, and by now it is bloody obvious that there is no consensus on whether these articles are notable or not (good arguments have been presented by both sides). In such a situation, it is obvious to me that we should err on the side of benefeting our readers and keep the articles. To you, however, it is a conspiracy by damn inclusionists who want to "keep stuff" for reasons you can't even explain.

On a different note, it is true that the burden of proof lies with the authors of the article, yet it is also true that these authors or other people interested in the subject should be given a chance to provide such proof. Yes, it's possible to resurrect an article from redirects or thin air, but the very fact the article had been previously deleted could be a sufficient deterrent to do so (if only out of fear of having one's work deemed "useless" and "unnotable" once again), which is a huge impediment for further development, editors retention, and overall progress of Wikipedia. Which brings me back to the definition of wikisabotage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:56, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking me to tell you again why I think x article should be deleted, or are you asking me to tell you why you "can't fathom why anyone would want to deny this information to our readers"? Because, in either case, you're dragging me as respondent and others as readers around in circles. If you can't see it, you can't see it, and that's that.

And do excuse me if I don't spend time worrying about those who may find urge to revitalize these articles in (I'm repeating myself here) the unlikely and speculative eventuality that proper sourcing, which has so far admittedly eluded any "rescue" attempt, is made available. I think we all have better things to do than worry about that. Oh, and: the "Cyprus-Russia relations" is still, well, nonsense; it's just that the "rescue" posse has turned it into convoluted nonsense from stubby nonsense, as has happened in about a million cases abusively cited as "the work of research". Dahn (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for not accepting this "explanation". It makes no sense to me at all; I have tried. End of circle.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:58, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

And the need to move past this apparent blockage in communication is what the AfDs stand for. Dahn (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yes, the Bahamian GG once "greeted" the Russian ambassador (care to tell us what suit he was wearing, or the duration and firmness of the handshake?), the Bahamian Red Cross (32 years before independence) once sent "aid" to "Russia" (care to specify the precise number of bandages, and how long the shipping took?), the two have a relationship based on "peace and international law" (that sounds familiar), and "since now" (does time stand still in this universe?), Bahamas "hopes to have a closer collaboration with Russia" (I'm sure Her Majesty's Bahamian Ministry has many "hopes" - shall we perhaps start a list of Hopes of the Bahamian Government?) -- but what this collection of trivia cannot mask is the utter lack of multiple, independent coverage accorded to "Bahamas–Russia relations". Fails WP:N easily. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument again is "relative importance" instead of notability and verifiability. I am sure we all agree it is not in the top third of press coverage, but its is still verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:08, 10 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.