Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek-Latvian 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Latvian relations

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

only 3 state visits in 18 years of diplomatic relations. the bilateral agreements are standard for fellow EU members. this relationship lacks any significant third party coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. No reliable, third-party sources discussing these countries' relations in any depth are cited in the article, and couldn't come up with any on my own. Fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Can't deal with this crap anymore...... Yilloslime ^T_C 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How was I to find all the third party references and you were not able to? The tools I have available are the same as yours. I have Google and human brain and fingers to type. We are in the the same field in the sciences. I suspect you vote before you perform the research. You can't look at the first page of the 10K Google results and give up. You have to refine the search. I looked at the information at the consulate websites then took the names of the visiting dignitary and searched for their name and the country they they were visiting in Google News. That gave me the exact reference for that state trip. It is not impossible work, but it is work. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. \//\ - 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced and notable. The nominator is just looking at the current state of the article instead of the current state of information on the relationship. We are voting on the topic, not the state of the article as it is now. There are more than 3 state visits according to that magic thing called Google. You just have to do a search and look through the results. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources in the article as it currently stands. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relationship between the two nations is notable, they having made agreements with each other, and had their leaders meet on multiple occasions. All of these events would've gotten news coverage in both countries and perhaps elsewhere. News coverage equals notability. "Greece made an agreement with Latvian over..." and then an article about the two nations agreement. Anyone doubt such coverage exist, and that it meets the suggested guidelines for notability? Dream Focus 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per absolutely stellar work improving this article by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Several bilateral agreements, numerous state visits covered by third party sources. Notability easily established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article subjects ought to have been covered in depth, not in a series of trivial news items Richard Arthur Norton happened to have found while googling. No, independent sources actually about "Greek-Latvian relations" do not exist, much as some might like to pretend they do. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia rule demands that the references refer exactly to the phrase "Greek-Latvian relations". Articles are about the concepts not the words, if it were about the word, we would be a dictionary and not an encyclopedia. We use sources for the Iraq War that call it "Occupation of Iraq" and "The Second Gulf War" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as well as the "Iraqi insurgency" and a handful of other synonyms. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia rule requires that the facts come from a single source. If an article has 10 facts, they can come from 10 sources, or come from 1 source. Mathematically, both methods have the same depth of coverage, which would be 10 facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient independent sources to establish noteability. Its good to have a mix including primary sources for this sort of article so we can offer more complete information to our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:27, 30 November 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.