Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Hungary 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Hungary relations

whilst noting they both have embassies, there is a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, only sport and multilateral. [1]. There's this and another minor agreement but not much to make notable relations. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator even provides independent 3rd party sources showing the existence of a bilateral agreement which he subjectively mischaracterizes as "minor". I doubt any tax professional would refer to this as a "minor" treaty. I doubt anyone from Belarus or Hungary would either. Should never have been nominated for deletion under these circumstances given obvious room for improvement. The close proximity of these countries should also be a clue that the Belarussian and Hungarian people have a long and significant history of relations. I've tagged this page for rescue. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure it may be notable for tax professionals but Wikipedia isn't written for a tax professional audience. "I doubt anyone from Belarus or Hungary would either. " is a bit of WP:SYNTH on your part if you can't back it with wide coverage showing it's notable. 1 source I've found on the agreement may be third party but it's not wide coverage.LibStar (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiikipedia is written for whoever is interested enough to read it. As an attorney who took several courses in law school on international law (as well as tax law which I found to be difficult) I rely extensively on wikipedia for research purposes on a daily basis. What you think is irrelevant to your life might be completely relevant to others. That's why we have to ensure that we are countering systematic bias.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have embassies in each others' capitals, they are members of several alliances, etc. It's obviously notable. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep > they're practically neighbouring and have strong relations. You listed some reliable sources to establish notability above, I noticed—thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are clearly important relations between these two countries. Further source [2]. TerriersFan (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very very weak delete - "The close proximity of these countries should also be a clue that the Belarussian and Hungarian people have a long and significant history of relations" --- not convincing given that Belorussia has not existing as a sovereign nation for very long. There may be something there with NATO expansion --- needs sources and evidence. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That assumes that people and this article should only identify with the current nation state. There are other examples in similar articles where the relations between peoples predated their government and were found to be worthy of inclusion. (See France-United_States_relations#France_and_the_American_Revolution where neither the government of the United States, nor the democratic government of France existed at the time of relations between the French and American people).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point --- but Belorussia is unlikely to be a good case for this phenomenon --- it was just one of the several Russias (Little Russia, Red Russia, White Russia etc) before the Soviet Union and never enjoyed even puppet status under German occupation. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Fails notability. Please note that "obviously notable" is WP:OR and not applicable on WP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the sources provided in the nom-statement? ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 19:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw the name of the article listed at AfD and I thought, "These relations must be notable". But then I looked at the article itself and this discussion a saw that the only sources identified thusfar are either non-independent or provide only trivial, non-significant coverage. And then I looked for sources on my own and didn't find anything else. For those reason, it doesn't meet the bar set in WP:N. If someone can demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, I'll change to keep. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An embassy doesn't make it notable. And an agreement to prevent double taxation is hardly notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 10 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.