Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy See–Qatar 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 delete. The article has not shown much improvement and is not likely to do so in the future; there is simply not enough possible content to merit an article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

=[[Holy See–Qatar relations]]=

:{{la|Holy See–Qatar relations}} ([{{fullurl:Holy See–Qatar relations|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy See–Qatar relations}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable relational article. Just because these two entities have relations, doesn't mean there should be an article for them. Tavix : Chat 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with nom: I can't find any evidence of a relationship other than officials from the Vatican attending a Muslim-Christian dialogue in Qatar nearly five years ago. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - strong precedent indicates that mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

:Comment Strong precedent indicates that mere existence of diplomatic relations is not necessary to create a diplomatic relations article on Wikipedia. Eauhomme (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This statement is radically misleading. While the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability, it is very strongly correlated with notability, to the point where the two might as well be nailed together at the hip. Wily D 14:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom - no evidence of any notability. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Wow... They're getting obscure now. Have we already exhausted Kiribati-Swaziland Relations and Papua New Guinea-Andorra Relations? Eauhomme (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep ; all Vatican relations are notable ; Qatar is apparently a friend to the Vatican, much like it has worked along the USA and Europe. ADM (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep -[http://www.zenit.org/article-5854?l=english Most purpose builty article one could imagine for establishing notability][http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F78121240C17B62&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM][http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-69633731.html][http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20040527.htm][http://www.zenit.org/article-6638?l=english][http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=January2007&file=Local_News200701093168.xml] and so forth. No argument has been articulated by those so eager to delete such articles on why they should be held to a much higher standard than the usual practice. Wily D 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Those articles tell us essentially nothing more than that relations were established, which is covered (at least by implication) at Holy_See#Diplomacy. More in-depth coverage could easily be placed at Roman Catholicism in Qatar, given the pretty bad state of that article, and the fact that the country has "very few" Catholics. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
They establish notability the usual way. Do you have any reason we shouldn't follow longstanding precedent on inclusion, beyond personal dislike? Wily D 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Mere existence of relations has been shown (shall I supply you with links?) not to be notable, and that's what we have here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet subjects covered in depth by multiple, third party, reputable publishers have been established to be notable, as explained in WP:N. In fact, almost all of your handful of examples are flaws from insufficient research into the subject. What we have here is a case where someone has done the research to demonstrate the notability that we all knew was there. Wily D 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem with your argument is the only relations these countries have is the fact that Qatar has an embassy and Holy See has a nunciature. That is not notability, that is trivia. Tavix | Talk 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet subjects covered in depth by multiple, third party, reputable publishers have been established to be notable, as explained in WP:N. Please read my comments before responding to them, unless you meant to present a strawman argument. Wily D 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop dodging the subject at hand. I know there are some topics that are notable, but not THIS one. Tavix | Talk 20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop using straw man arguments. This topic is notable, and that has already been demonstrated. Willfull blindness is not a substitute for an argument. Wily D 00:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There is nothing in this article that cannot be adequately represented within the main articles of each nation. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It turns out many countries are so significant more than one article is required to cover them to an appropriate depth. Wily D 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Buddy, put your money where your mouth is and expand these articles to the point where they are worthy of inclusion as a separate article. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That has already been done. This is a work in progress, that an article isn't finished isn't a reason to delete a sensible start on a highly notable encyclopaedic topic. Wily D 00:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't done and frankly, I don't think it can be done. The fact of the matter is that these relations have next to nothing of note that isn't trivial and is worthy of inclusion. Tavix | Talk 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is (and the fact that it has been done demonstrates that it can be done). The relationship meets the usual standards of inclusion. What makes this such an exceptional case that we should require a much higher standard? "Worthy" denotes some sort of ethical principle, why should we adopt your values for what's worthy of inclusion? Nothing in this article can reasonably be called trivial - it's only pertinant, relevent information. 01:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The article fails to claim why this relationship is notable. The links here are mostly short descriptions of normal diplomatic visits and normal non-notable things that go with relations. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, X-Y relations are not inherently notable, even when X = the Vatican. As with any other article, notability is established by demonstrating that significant coverage of the topic exists in independent, secondary sources. This has not been done. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

:Comment - The article also has to stand on its own merits, not just the supposed existence of secondary sources. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. There isn't much more than the establishment of diplomatic relations: A cardinal at a Muslim conference in Qatar, and a breakthrough allowing the construction of churches in Qatar. It's absurd to have an article just for that, the information can go elsewhere. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

: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.