Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunei–Russia 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 no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei–Russia relations

a real lack of coverage of any bilateral relationship, only multilateral coverage. there's this visit by Putin but that was for an APEC summit. and the Brunei sultan made a visit in 2005 but both these articles don't make notable relations for an article. I suspect most relations happen in a Russian-ASEAN context. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations in the detail required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a close call again -- I wish we had some more to Keep. Collect (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this article, User:Russavia, has not been notified by User:LibStar of this Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of sources that discuss this subject.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of sources that discuss this subject, add the {{Unreferenced}} template and keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:51, June 2, 2009 (UTC)

But there are no sources. Unsourced, unverifiable articles are a bad thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked all possible places where sources might be available? Have you looked for sources in Russian? In Malay? Just because you can't find any does not automatically mean there aren't any, which brings me back to my original point—tag the article as unreferenced, give it reasonable time, then think of deletion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:11, June 2, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A quick search shows that there are plenty of sources available (I've just listed the top ones).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:17, June 2, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of development. No sources discuss these relations. The links from Ëzhiki appear to be news stories about political visits, with no assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The news stories are all based on totally unnotable events, have no base in reality, cannot serve as a starting point for further research at all, and do not demonstrate that more sources do exist out there. I hope that's not what you were trying to say?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:14, June 3, 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Ezhiki's links provided on the talk page providing information regarding the first visit to Russia by a head of state of Brunei in 2005. The start of bilateral relations with the Soviet Union also marked an important turning point for Brunei's foreign relations. Relations exist, are notable and have been independently verified.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations do exist but are they subject to significant coverage to satisfy WP:N? simply having relations is not the same as notable relations for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see "significant" coverage, yes. Multiple independent reliable sources in books, news, and government public relations coverage. I also like the picture of the two leaders meeting. We might have different ideas of how significant coverage has to be to pass the test but this actually looks very significant to me. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that there are additional references per LibStar's request. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing, as will always or almost always be the case with major nations--even in their relationships to minor ones. Time to require nominators to back up their assertions that there are no sources. DGG (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - true, relations exist (as, in any case, List of diplomatic missions of Brunei will hint), but have they actually been covered in depth by multiple independent sources? No. Rather than keep around a topic invented by Wikipedians in breach of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, let's abide by policy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous argument in another debate was that the topic of bilateral relations was using the information from a government website, and that was your excuse for deleting it there, now you are switching to saying the concept of bilateral relations is original synthesis. Which is it, it can't be both. It is a standard article covering the same topics that LibStar writes in the articles he has created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Government sites can't be used for documenting relations of those governments, per WP:GNG. "Brunei–Russia relations" as a topic hasn't (as far as we can discern) been covered in depth by multiple, reliable, independent sources, again per WP:GNG. No inconsistency there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one resident ambassador, relations only 22 years old, and a handful of summits. Earth-shattering... NOT! --BlueSquadronRaven 04:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable, based on synthesis of material gathered together with the editorial purpose of making this article look like it covers something important. Dahn (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much information is going to be found in publications such as this, this, and information which is so far provided in the article provides a basis upon which an article can be built once someone is able to access offline sources. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia.Biophys (talk) 01:21, 8 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.