Wikipedia talk:Notability (bilateral relationships)

I created this proposal in response to a large number of AfDs of this type. I had originally said "delete," but I am rethinking this now. After all, most of these articles have been referenced.

I am not forming my final opinion yet, but I would like to see what others have to say about the subject. Sebwite (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the introduction and nutshell, may I suggest renaming the proposal to Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations), which describes the concept of "Country A-Country B relations" more specifically than "international relationships". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sebwite (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Various options

I can suggest two additional options:

1. Articles describing bilateral relationships are worthy of inclusion if the bilateral relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (This is basically a restatement of the general notability guideline.)
2. Articles describing bilateral relationships are worthy of inclusion if the bilateral relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, beyond routine news coverage of minor announcements, meetings, trade relations, cultural exchanges, and other events. (This is basically a restatement of the general notability guideline with an emphasis on WP:NOT#NEWS.)

Also, I would suggest considering the removal of "Articles like this should not be included period, even with sources." as an option. To date, I have not seen anyone suggest in an AfD that bilateral relationship articles should not exist at all, regardless of notability or sourcing. Even if someone has, this option does not stand a chance of gaining general consensus support. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added your suggestions to the page, incorporating them into the existing options. What you said (being WP:N) is basically what I wrote as option 1. I added the second one to option 3. While I do agree with you about option 2 not being accepted, I am leaving it there thinking that the end result will be a balance will be struck between the two extremes. Some articles of this type have been deleted, so I want to hear what others have to say, and there perhaps should be some consideration given to restoring the deleted articles for future improvement. Sebwite (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding #1, I actually perceived that option as being different from and more inclusive than the general notability criterion. The notability of a topic is independent of the state of sourcing in the article about that topic. An article about a notable topic could be completely unsourced and a completely-sourced article could be about a topic that is not notable. Regarding #2, I see your point... Might I also suggest adding a fourth option ("All articles about bilateral relationships are inherently notable.") to reflect the opposite of #2? It's not an option that I personally support, but I believe that it has been voiced in at least a few AfDs. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded this to 4 options. Hopefully real soon. I do not personally support all this myself. I am just trying, after so many afds like these, to establish a consensus on these types of articles. Sebwite (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I support something between options 2 and 3. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this notabilty debate is meaningless. Each bilateral relationship article can be kept as long as they meet the three core content policies and the "foreign relations of XXX" is sound enough. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions about option #3

1. 3 looks the most reasonable, but some of the criteria are dubious. Would an article pass the guideline if the pass only 1 of the criteria? For example, if the President of Malta visits Japan and shakes hands with the Emperor and Prime Minister, do we now have a notable relationship? Or the criteria: "nationals of the other country resident one of the countries". I don't like that one at all. It's vague. Does it take 2? 200? 2000? 20,000? I have difficulty accepting the immigration patterns of individuals as being national relations? Then there is "sharing common cultural elements". What does that mean? Do they watch the same movies? Do they wear similar clothing? I'm not trying to sound stupid, but Entertainment and dress are cultural elements. I want to avoid those being arguments. Sharing an official language......ok, I can see that, but I see a problem too. For example, the official language of Liberia is English. Does that make them have a notable relationship with New Zealand right out of the gate? I also have difficulty with the criteria about membership in multilateral organizations. That flies in the face of a criteria for bilateral relations. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)