Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus is clear Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Estonia–Luxembourg relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am nominating a 2nd time, as there was very strong consensus from the deletion review to delete this page, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20 not recreate as an disambiguation page. In the 150 odd bilateral articles in the last 2 months, not 1 has resulted in a disambiguation page, some have been redirected but that has been through consensus in the AfD. I am opening this for specific discussion of whether Estonia-Luxembourg needs to exist even as a disambiguation page. Also there has been some discussion here on the talk page of the admin who decided overturn and delete and subsequently recreation as a disambiguation page User_talk:King_of_Hearts#DRV_closure User_talk:King_of_Hearts#Estonia-Luxembourg_relations LibStar (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Disambiguation pages should be used to differentiate between articles with the same or similar names. This is not a disambiguation page as the articles listed have very different names and so are not ambiguous. The Wikipedia search function for the words in the article name returns the appropriate articles so the page is not only inappropriate but unnecessary. In addition it is a very unlikely search term so it is not appropriate for a redirect. Drawn Some (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:DABNAME The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, there is nothing ambiguous about this title the term Estonia–Luxembourg relations refers to relations between these 2 countries and nothing else. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that was the missing explanation that I haven't been able to verbalize well. Drawn Some (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Estonia for "Luxembourg", and Luxembourg for "Estonia" shows nothing. In Foreign relations of Estonia we learn when each country recognized the other, and whether or not each has an embassy in the other country (neither do). In Foreign relations of Luxembourg we find the same information. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All that was "merged" (to use the term loosely) was the opening paragraph. A brief, sparse recitation of facts...with no prose, style, or anything to distinguish it from any number of encyclopedic sources where such info is found...was reformatted into a bullet list in each article. This seems a bit flimsy, in terms of copyright, which is solely what the particle's restoration and subsequent redirect was based upon. WP:MAD is an interpretation of policy, it is not policy in itself. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this does in fact pass the bilateral relations test mentioned by Johniq since both countries are in the EU and probably engaged in significant trade. Notability should be sufficient. I would develop the article on its own rather than have it serve as a disambiguation page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote to Conditional delete explained below.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my vote back to Keep. Upon further research,I do not believe that this article can be deleted if the restrictions on editing in the form of a protection tag remain in place per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion. As I suspected from the first, it makes no sense to delete pages that are not allowed to be improved. I would therefore end this discussion as keep, remove the protection tag, revert the page back to its pre-disambig state, and further improve it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With such a niche topic as "Estonia-Luxembourg relations," I would like to know what significant event would justify this article's existence. For instance, Germany-Namibia relations is justified since Namibia was once a German colony.--WaltCip (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the discussion is about deleting the disambiguation page that resulted from a consensus to delete the original page as the topic is not notable and any information can be contained in the articles on each country's foreign relations. Second, common membership in the EU is multilateral relations. Third, "probably engaged" etc. is a complete supposition. Fourth, a consensus has been reached that not all of these articles are inherently notable, although I see you stated that elsewhere. Fifth, you have to have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability and it was already explored extensively just in the past week or so and found that it doesn't exist. Drawn Some (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree totally with above. good luck finding reliable sources proving "probably engaged in significant trade". italics added LibStar (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: sources about relations > well, this seems to indicate €13.8million of trade in 2007, with mutual trade/business delegations every few years since 1999. Luxembourg investments in Estonia totalled €225million. This is a news article regarding their diplomacy regarding the EU constitution. This might yield something interesting, though I've not looked into it in depth.
I think that that's enough to be getting on with. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really look at that stuff? It clearly emphasizes in words how unimportant the trade between the two is, several times. Not important trade partners at all. Do you have a conception of 13.8 million Euros and how that is essentially nothing in terms of trade? Both countries have a GDP of about 30 BILLION Euros. It proves the opposite of what you claim it does. Drawn Some (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I thought that a source establishing trade worth quite a lot of money (and if it isn't quite a lot of money, you can transfer €13million to my bank account at your convenience), estabishing trade delegations and specifying investment and what form imports and exports take, was quite useful to people inclined to keep the article. Also, this is a news article regarding their diplomacy regarding the EU constitution. This might yield something interesting, though I've not looked into it in depth. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
on the point of trade in 2007, Estonia exported 1.4 million EUR to Luxembourg, yet total exports were USD11.31 billion, so doing the conversion and maths, Luxembourg represented 0.02% of Estonia's total exports! and for imports 0.12%! insignificant. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Libstar and Drawn Some, as of December 31, 2007, foreign investments made in Estonia originating from Luxembourg totaled 225 million EUR accounting for 2% of the total volume of foreign direct investments, placing them as the tenth largest source of foreign investment. That information was removed to make room for this disambig page for us to discuss. Oh well, I guess the word will never know. Sigh.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is getting ridiculous, the consensus was previously to delete on notability grounds, and nothing has changed. Also, there is no need for a disambiguation page. If the rationale for this page is purely GFDL compliance, then it would be much better to merge the histories, and leave this as a red link. PhilKnight (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate use of disambiguation page and seems like an end-run around the consensus at the DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep per Cdogsimmons above, and the disambig value of the page. Note to Drawn Some: this comment of "weak keep" does not mean "should be deleted but I like it". ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I !voted keep on some of these relations pages, and delete for others, and this seems to be one of the least useful of all of them. Per others, disambiguations should not be created for this use. No point in having this article with no content - it can easily be recreated later if someone wanted to write a real article with sources (assuming there are enough)YobMod 11:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a useful disambiguation and its highly unlikely that the relationship between the countries would meet WP:N if an article was written on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not at all a proper dab page, and a clear circumvention of the DRV closure (by the closer himself/herself). Deor (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment from nominator I would like to stress that this existence of this article is a direct contradiction to established procedures of deletion review and WP:DAB. If you see what's been happening, it is an attempt by the admin who's original keep closure decision was clearly overturned in the deletion review to somehow change this decision as shown by these edits [1] and [2] which do not reflect the actual outcome of the deletion review of clear "overturn and delete" not recreate as disambiguation page. (this re-creation was performed on request of the original admin without consensus). LibStar (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —The preceding comment was updated 15:52, 2009 May 28[reply]
    • King of Hearts closed the DRV and created the disambiguation page. I think you are confusing people. -- User:Docu
      • Well, i think you have a poor grasp of policy and continue to seek to frustrate policy-based consensus. You asked him to restore the article or "redirect" it.[3] He tried this as a compromise (an outcome i think is incorrect, but respect he was trying to be helpful). Also, a read of WP:SIG would be helpful for you, particularly if you intend to participate in long threaded discussions where time stamps are helpful to all your other editors. You really should know better by now.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you need an additional explanation, you could ask him for it. -- User:Docu
          • The point is, King of Hearts closed the DRV as a delete, and it remained so until you went to his talk page playing the GFDL card. Then it was restored. Please do not depict the initial DRV finding as a decision to merge. Tarc (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The logs are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Estonia%E2%80%93Luxembourg+relations
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia%E2%80%93Luxembourg_relations&diff=292803836&oldid=292010933
    Just in case one wants to check. -- User:Docu 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Is a clearer way of looking at the sequence of events. Docu, can you explain how LibStar is "confusing people" ? Tarc (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I have anything to do with conversion to a disambiguation page. Besides I don't read anything where "Docu requests restoration"? Where did you read that? -- User:Docu 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Just ignore him tarc. He just plays games/refuses to answer direct questions/tries to do end arounds on consensus/etc... He's one of those legacy admins.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the best, but it is odd how can one write "Thus, for GFDL compliance, the article can't be deleted. It should either be redirected or kept" yesterday, and then deny that he asked for the article to be restored today. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't necessary here, perhaps there is a better place for discussion. Also it's not fair to point fingers at King of Hearts, period. Drawn Some (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tarc here except that King of Hearts was acting in good faith (not that I agree with creating an inappropriate disambig page). Ever since Docu's decision to keep was clearly overturned, he has been pushing the restoration of this article so that his original decision doesn't look bad, hence he can do these markings, [4] and [5]. this is an attempt by Docu to cover his actions, what is also of concern is that this not an ordinary editor but an admin doing this. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I do not hold KoH's actions in any sort of bad light or faith either. :) I don't agree with the restoration move obviously, but it was done with the best of intentions at addressing the possibility of a copyright/licensing issue. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not really a disambiguation page, and it is of zero value. My major concern is that since it's not a tru DAB page that it can easily become a content fork again, as it was before it was deleted, a deletion that was rather overwhelmingly supported at an AfD that was badly closed and at the DrV of that AfD.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - (I only commented before, above) - There are better ways to adhere to GFDL, if it was even necessary here at all, without restoring the page into an implausible and inappropriate use of a disambig page. Consensus was clear to delete the page. Also note, I have (twice) removed a "rescue" tag from the page. The Rescue squad lays out 4 cases where the tag is to be used, and I do not see in any way how that is applicable to a disambig page. There is no question here about restoring/rescuing the original article form, that ship already sailed at DRV. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No realiable secondary source adresses these relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an appropriate disambiguation page. Delete per the prior AFD and DRV. Not a notable subject. No GFDL problem. Edison (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No need for this page's existence. Basically clutterware and counterpoint to community consensus, which by the way stated both in AFD and DRV to delete. We wouldn't give any other deleted article this much special treatment.--WaltCip (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored the page to it pre-disambig status and have continued to improve it. Let's not fight over a strawman. After all, who really cares about the existence of a disambig page. Please consider this to be a recreation of the page in an attempt to create a page worth reading, rather than overrule the previous verdict to delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite frankly, that is bullshit, and I am appaled at your blatant end-around of a community decision. The article was deleted according to broad consensus, and was specifically recreated for the sole reason that it was believed to be necessary to satisfy GFDL concerns. Revert yourself, please. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullshit?!? Yeah I might use that word. Since you've compelled an admin to revert my helpful edits,[6] without asking me to on my talk page, or getting your hands dirty yourself. I'm sorry I wasn't privy to your observation that this page, could only, and should only ever survive as a disambig page indefinitely, no matter how much new info was brought to light. So there's nothing left to say. This article can't be improved in this condition. I see no point to try to defend it in this state. I urge King of Hearts to get a second Admin's opinion. But as far as being an "involved editor" is concerned, Tarc, I can at least say that I'm making an attempt to improve the quality of this project. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way Tarc, your repeated removals of my Rescue tag here and here were really beyond the pale. Seriously, it's practically vandalism. This page was improved past Luxembourg–Russia relations and you still wanted it gone. Do you have an ax to grind or something?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Axes? No, as I have never been involved in any of this until a few days ago, and that only came from seeing the DRV discussion. I do have a beef with people who misuse rescue tags to save their favored articles when it clearly isn't applicable, though. It was not vandalism to revert your misuse. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cdogsimmons, you have to realise what you are pushing is for a restoration of an article that was incorrectly closed in the initial AfD, then a very strong consensus in the deletion review, you are essentially making a mockery of these 2 processes, because trying to push the existence of the original article means that the whole AfD and DRV process is a waste of time. Why do we bother having AfDs if articles can be restored like this? Please respect Wikipedia processes. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I was trying to allow for the article to be evaluated as a disambiguation page. We've already considered the article as an article at the last AfD, and it was deleted, so that is not necessary at this AfD. I'm not such a staunch advocate of my creation of the disambiguation actually; see my comments below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you meant well, but the inevitable result of your action (to recreate an article page, which is what you did, this is not a Dab page) was that some people would try to resurrect the elaborate piece of crap article that had a rather overwhelming consensus to delete despite the rather incompetent interventions of user:Docu. There were no GFDL concerns whatsoever (that was just a smokescreen thrown up by Docu) and yet here we are.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the admin who closed the DRV, I've had a pretty difficult time sorting this out. After deliberating over this for some time, I feel that the content at Estonia–Luxembourg relations does not fall under Copyright#Scope, which states that "Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed." The "Malta" portion of Foreign relations of Estonia seems to be a boilerplate non-notable bilateral summary. While those statements are indeed copyrightable, they've been used in other (notable) articles such as India–Malta relations. Estonia–Luxembourg was created on November 9, 2008; the most recent version of India–Malta before that date was October 18, 2008, so the boilerplate has been released under the GFDL, with history preserved. As public information, the mere insertion of facts into a template is not copyrightable. Thus delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also: I personally feel that using a (pseudo-)disambiguation is the lesser evil; most others would disagree, and prefer a redirect. However, now I'm thinking, perhaps this whole thing is moot. If the relations between two countries are notable, so be it. If the relations between them aren't notable, then maybe it's not even worth mentioning anything in their corresponding foreign relations articles besides uncopyrightable material. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, in creating the disambiguation, I knew it was not a permanent solution; I was just trying to err on the side of caution. Docu made a good point, I must say; this issue kept me occupied for the last few days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments King of Hearts, I do believe you were acting in good faith, and certainly had no intention to restore the original article as others have been pushing. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two users? Who are they? -- User:Docu
If you click on "history", you can see: Richard Arthur Nornton (1958- ) and Cdogsimmons. Drawn Some (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, you think my trying to improve a page to the point it can be kept should result in me being blocked from editing? There was no set policy or consensus that the page should not be improved from the disambig state (and still none exists to my understanding, merely the weight of an Admin's overturn). We obviously have serious differences in the way we think wikipedia should be run. If you think I should be blocked for my actions, I advise you to take it up with an administrator and then let me have the benefit of procedural due process, rather than excusing yourself for being "involved".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was clear policy that the page should not be improved from the disambig state; it was only restored to that state for copyright concerns. The content was removed, by consensus, and it was improper for you to restore it. All water under the bridge now really, so please, move on. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I can understand a vote to delete based on copyright concerns if they were valid. However, as King of Hearts explains above, copyright is not applicable here. I disagree that the page must be kept in such a minimized state. I personally don't think that the page serves well as a a disambig at all. I would be all in favor of deleting it so that the page could be restored based on its own merit. I added several facts which were then removed when the page was reverted to a disambig that could have allowed the page to pass a deletion review (which I understand has happened before but which I disagree with since the page has merit, the problem being, no one here was as willing to improve the article as they were to delete it. Call me an optimist, I think I can improve the page to where it can pass deletion review if I'm actually allowed to edit it). Instead, people here are left clinging to the old decision for deletion and stuck with a disambig page that makes no sense. It doesn't have to be like this, but since it appears people here are only willing to consider the page as a disambig (which is not required anywhere, Tarc, only implied by the fact that it was deleted before and restored by an Admin as a disambig) which is stupid in my opinion, but whatever, I think the disambig should be conditionally deleted so good faith editing can take place on a recreated version of this page which will be worth reading (aka notable). That vote for delete of course is conditional on the page being restored to an editable state. I do this for practicality's sake, not because it makes sense, (maybe in part because User:Stifle is trying to get myself and others who want to improve this page blocked if you look above) and not because there is any solid decision or consensus that requires this page to remain a disambig. People have just convinced themselves that there is.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're being disingenuous. I've requested protection through the end of this AFD to stop attempts at circumventing consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Disingenous" –adjective, lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere. Your accusation is misplaced Stifle. My main concern is the improvement of this article, as I explained here, and on your talk page. Your opinion that I am being disingenuous is wrong. Can't say it any plainer than that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified my opinion (again) back to keep per the policy at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously - nothing here. And why is this even necessary given the DRV. Eusebeus (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article looks fine. I reverted it, after someone wiped out 90% of it. If you want to delete something, you discuss it here, and wait to see how it closes. And those who said "delete" please make certain you are seeing the article at its fullest, not the version where most of it was erased. There seems to be a notable relationship between the two nations, mostly in trade. Dream Focus 07:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep version as restored by Dream Focus. Heard the rattle of sabers and clatter of small arms fire. Came to look in. Not involved in any prior attempts to either flush this article down the toilet or raise it unto the skies. Took a look at the earlier stub article. Saw its organization, its sourcing, it encyclopedic format. Looks very worthy of Wikipedia in informing readers interested in the subject of the relationship between Estonia and Luxembourg. Not like you're looking at some sort of tenuous relationship. With respects to all parties... I hope it not to out of line to point out that Wikipedia is not perfect nor does it demand or expect to be. Wikipedia encourages the protection of information so that they do not get lost among other articles or become usless to readers. That small problems should be handled without being made into large problems. It encourages boldness, yes, but for little edits. The big stuff needs discussion... not warring over content until one side or the other gives up out of frustration. AfD is not a vote. 200 arguments saying the same thing in 200 different ways can be countered by one cogent argument that uses policy and guideline to propely refute the 200... either for delete or for keep. It is the value of the arguments that closer considers, not the volume. These pages are not here for the editors... its not about us. Wikipedia is for the readers... whether a kid in Liverpool or a CEO in Boise... we're here for them. And so.. with my keep opinion made and my comment said... I will put on my flack-jacket and leave the battlefield. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have you seen this Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20? LibStar (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This version seems excellent and even the stubby tee has some value. Deletion is not an appropriate way of improving this material. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That version is not on the table as a possibility, as it was deleted by clear consensus at a DRV discussion. A DRV that was necessary because an involved admin wrongly closed the first AfD as a keep. Tarc (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canvassing tag goes up, the bots are going to do what the bots are going to do, never mind consensus already being established and this being a malformed dab page that, in theory, shouldn't be allowed to be "improved." (that is, it isn't an article).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rescue Squadron do not vote Keep automatically. Just yesterday I said Delete to an article that had been tagged. This article should be kept. The closing administrator said the Keep arguement was far more valid, than any of the deletes, and reading it over, I agree. It should've been kept. A lot of you went over to the deletion review and had it overturned, it then restored, and here we are again, at the AFD. If an article is to be deleted, it should be done in the AFD, where people will notice it. Consider this a do over. And please stop assuming bad faith on the part of other editors. No one here is a bot. Dream Focus 14:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to everyone does anyone realise we would never been having this discussion if the original AfD has been closed correctly as delete, an outcome vindicated in deletion review. If it had actually been deleted in the first instance, the only recourse to keeping it would have been a deletion review to overturn and keep. I doubt that would have happened. Because of all this, I think in total many hours of good Wikipedia users time has been soaked up that could have gone to better use. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree. It would have been far better as a matter of policy to have deleted this article cleanly so that if it were to be recreated, we wouldn't be stuck in a situation where people are only willing to consider the article as a disambig page. The overall ability of wikipedia users to improve articles should be sacrosanct. Freezing the article in a disambig state makes improvement impossible and is against the policy decision laid out in WP:Ignore that wikipedia should be open to improvement. I think the new information added (that Estonia and Luxembourg have a fairly significant investment relationship since Luxembourg is a major banking power, all the more relevant today based on the turmoil in the banking sector) should merit recreation of a substantive article which should be discussed honestly. This disambig nonsense has wasted everyone's time.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a disambig page, it's like a strange and arbitary introduction. Not required. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absurd abuse of the disambiguation function. In extremis, we could redirect to one or the other (flip a coin), but given earlier consensus to delete (reiterated at DRV), this is patently an attempt to circumvent that consensus. Why, I don't know. Nor does it concern us. We have Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Luxembourg; those should be enough to serve the interested reader (not that such readers exist, but never mind that). The need, desirability or even accord with policy of this page has not and cannot be demonstrated. - Biruitorul Talk 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Administrator please note The article is frozen in its useless Disambiguation page state, which no one is arguing to keep. Those who say Keep, want the original article back(it was determined Keep in the first AFD, do to the arguments of the Keeps, not the votes of the deletes). Those who keep coming here and saying delete now, as the two above, only comment on the Disambiguation page. If there was a problem with the first AFD, then relist it, and do it over again, with the proper article page there, not these Disambiguation page that is there now. Dream Focus 11:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review is basically whoever is around at the time who decides to comment, it apparently a vote, unlike the AFD which is based on the content of the arguments. And I don't want every single bilateral article kept, only those with content as this one has/had. Dream Focus 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so we should disregard a deletion review (which uses consensus as well and a very strong consensus developed including many people that I have never seen at bilateral AfDs) and all delete AfDs just in case there are not enough people around to comment on? that's ridiculous. this whole Estonia-Luxembourg case is making a mockery of the established procedures WP:AFD, WP:DRV and WP:DAB, we wouldn't even be here if correct procedure was followed and it was closed as delete, do you intend now to contest deleted bilateral articles in deletion reviews? LibStar (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD closed properly as KEEP based on argument, not votes. You didn't like it, so you took it to the DRV, and had enough deletionists(who seem to vote delete 99% of the time or more) there to have it overturned. You have not made any valid reason why the original article should be deleted. The article should be restored and kept. Dream Focus 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
closed properly as keep? you have to be kidding me, I refuted the only 1 keep vote in that. and now you totally disrespect the outcome of deletion review. many admins commented in the deletion review that Docu's judgement was poor. was the deletion review wrong? I don't think so. I have made several reasons why the original article should be deleted, the main one being a significant lack of third party coverage of actual bilateral relations. seems like you only want to keep all bilateral articles...please request deletion review of the 150 odd deleted ones in the past 2 months. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're also effectively saying that deletion review outcomes should be ignored (especially when someone likes an article) and in effect it's a useless procedure of Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator believed the argument of the keep, the "Presidential visits, growing trade and cultural contacts, four bilateral agreements", made it notable. It was closed just fine. You didn't like the outcome, so you ganged up at the one place where its about votes not valid reason for arguments, and overturned that. Ignoring the KEEP made on valid arguments, and respecting the deletion review based on vote stacking, makes no sense at all. And I do not vote Keep on all bilaterial articles, only those with content which clearly make them notable. Dream Focus 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the above is purely your opinion and might I add disrespectful of the deletion review process. to accuse me of ganging up is not assuming good faith. It may have had "Presidential visits, growing trade and cultural contacts, four bilateral agreements" but it lacked significant third party coverage to meet WP:N, something you fail to acknowledge. I refuted the only keep vote as it did not prove there is significant coverage of bilateral relations, almost all the coverage was multilateral, and a search was conducted in three languages: Estonian, French and English but none found significant coverage of bilateral relations. perhaps you could do a search in German to disprove me? LibStar (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too support reinstating the article. There certainly seemed to be canvassing by those opposed to the article to overturn at the DRV which objectively would be a no consensus not a delete. This, unfortunately, is just the latest chapter in the bilateral-relations articles saga which I was hoping there was an uneasy truce to holding off further clogging the AfD systems while a team of editors tried to wor out some constructive policies. These actions woud seem to fan the flames of polarizing rather than building consensus. We need long-term solutions not short-term battles. We all have better things to do. -- Banjeboi 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be little to say about relations between these two countries, and what little there is can be found in the "Foreign relations of ..." tables for each country. As it stands, as a sort of index page pointing to these two real articles, this article may possibly occasionally be of use. It avoids the (trivial) bias that could be implied by redirecting the title to one or the other "Foreign relations of ..." articles. It does no harm. But if it were deleted, there would be no great loss. So, keep or delete, I don't care. Why so much passion and energy arguing about it? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the above, a decision to delete does not mean that the subject does not and never will deserve an article in Wikipedia. It is just a decision that the article as it stands does not meet the criteria for retention. Any editor can recreate an article with this name, as long as they make a solid, informative article with good sources that show notability. A decision to delete would raise the bar a bit - a new article with this name would get fairly intense scrutiny - but if there is enough to be said on the subject, the new article would survive. Again, I don't see what the fuss is about. Let's quit arguing about borderline cases and spend our energy on constructive improvements to the tables in the "Foreign relations of ..." articles. See User:Aymatth2/Relations for my personal views on what could usefully be done. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant third-party coverage with which to make an article. Shouldn't be a disambiguation page since the consensus was Delele both in the original AfD and in the Review. The situation with this Admin appears to be exactly as Libstar and Tarc have stated. This is just the case of a longtime admin trying to cover up a bad call, and it really looks bad. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per all the excellent arguments raised at the previous AfD and DRV, an article on Estonia-Luxembourg Relations has no place on WP. Per the way every other case has been handled, a DAB is also inappropriate. Yilloslime TC 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think we'd normally have a dab for this sort of thing, seems more like an attempt to deceitfully recreate a deleted article, consider salting. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a joke to be frank. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you check out the non-disambig version in the history. It's a little hard to improve when the article is protected.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:42, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg_relations_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144789300"