Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:14, 5 February 2023

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 keep. –Juliancolton |  17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Belarus–Netherlands relations

Belarus–Netherlands relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Yet another trivial intersection of countries. Nothing more to say about this than that the embassy/mission/etc. is in such and such a place. Nothing has been written in reliable sources about the countries' relations. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If anything encyclopedically notable is referenced, I'll change to keep. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-15t18:57z
  • Keep after Drmies' improvements because it now qualifies as notable enough for Misplaced Pages, tho it doesn't yet indicate real encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-16t09:28z
• Delete this unreferenced sub does not even assert notability. When i went looking for notability for this obscure, untended relationship i found none. Which is to say that this defines non-notable and unverifiable as a topic.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- I' 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep--Bali, you are too quick on the draw, and I think you don't speak or read Dutch. The two countries do have relations; in fact, they have relations to the point where they were broken off out of concern for human rights violations in Belarus (which is usually called "Wit-Rusland" in Dutch). See, for instance, a letter by the Dutch foreign ministry to the Dutch parliament concerning Dutch relations with a number of Eastern-European countries, here. After the 2006 Elections the Dutch secretary of state refused to loosen passport requirements for Belarussians, here. The Dutch swayed the European Union from having an Interpol summit in Minsk, to protest those elections, here. Children from Belarus affected by the Chernobyl disaster have for years been coming to the Netherlands for summer vacations, and in 2008 were prevented from doing so by the Belarus government, here. I'm sure there's more to be found; these were found using a Google News search. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • BTW, yet another whole bunch of valuable time taken up by Groubani's ridiculous stubs. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you beavering away adding sources using reliable, independent sources in a language that i don't speak (does holland even have a decent paper left after hanedelsbladt (sp?) that could establish notability? If not, let's not make it about me. Let's make it about: totally unreferenced stub of no apparent notability (and none establishable by me) on wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and to be clear. I don't think Dutch passport laws as they relate to Belarus are particularly interesting (i'm almost certain, poor non-dutch speaker that i am, that there isn't a "special" belarus category -- just that they aren't in the top tier), I think it's wonderful that either the dutch state or the dutch citizen (or both -- who knows?! -- i don't speak dutch and no dutch speaker has ever, in good faith, briefly summarized and used a dutch reliable source for this article so that i could evaluate it and learn something at the same time) have helped Belarusian victims of Chernobyl, and I'm sorry that, briefly, the dutch were briefly upset that the belarusian state often behaves like thugs (I'm from the US, my state often does likewise, but out of good faith holland keeps its mouth shut. Who cares?) In closing -- my roomate Anthony's girlfriend Ala is a belarusian (jewish first however; she does not have fond memories of the old country) -- and standing over my shoulder she says there is no relationship. And what is the worth of Ala's comment as a citation? Not much, but better than every citation (hint -- there are none) in the article at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"does holland even have a decent paper left after hanedelsbladt (sp?) that could establish notability?" Is that supposed to be funny? and this, "out of good faith holland keeps its mouth shut. Who cares?" is there a joke here that I'm not getting? I'm not telling you to speak or read Dutch, although anyone could figure out that countries sometimes have different names in different languages, and although I don't understand why you would insult someone who does--and no, this is not about you, although you did say that you went looking and found nothing. Well, you didn't look in the proper places, it's that simple. I'm not adding all this stuff to the article right now. AfD is not for cleanup, it's for establishing notability. If some editors are convinced by the links I've provided that the subject is notable, then I'm happy. If you're not, I couldn't care less. Oh, it's spelled H-A-N-D-E-L-S-B-L-A-D, and the paper is called NRC Handelsblad, and they're still in business and so are a host of other notable newspapers, including Trouw and Volkskrant. Pardon me for having more faith in the references I found than in your roommate's girlfriend. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. A native speaker of english would have understood that "does holland even have a decent paper left after hanedelsbladt (sp?)" meant "is there a paper beyond the venerable NR-CHE blah blah blah" that is notable? It's clear you speak english excellently, but not at native level. That's ok. Well done! Here's a pro-tip for those wanting to create real content for wikipedia, if they speak dutch and have good english (as you do). What's cool about this subject is that it has almost no ghits but if i spoke hollandisch (or whatever the kids are calling it these days) I could have a start class article done on this interesting fellow in less than an hour. Dirk Vlasblom. Go for it.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the compliment. I'm sorry I misunderstood your usage of the word "left after"--but all I have at my disposal is TAHD and the online OED, and they didn't offer "besides" as an option. Given that you yourself concede that knowledge of Dutch would allow you to write this up as a decent article, given that these sources exist, and given that AfD is not about the actual inclusion of sources in the article but about the notability of the topic, are you willing to reconsider your delete vote? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't conceeded anything. Speaking dutch is an asset. I trust you to fairly translate any sources you find. I have yet to see anything that raises this to notable. Why not make a real article, with sources and everything, about dirk?Bali ultimate (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, sir, I ask that you kindly take another look at the article, paying particular attention to the quality of the sources. Some might call it a "real" article now. I also would like to request that you ask me about "dirk" in another forum, in order not to trivialize the discussion here. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Once again, non-notable, not even resident ambassadors. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Care to look at the article again? That there are no ambassadors, there's a very good reason for it, which has to do with the status of the diplomatic relations between the two countries. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I found a few mentions in English like Forbes article that states the Netherlands account for 7.5% of total trade, An article saying that ambassadors from the Netherlands were denied access to Belarus, article stating that a dutch foreign minister refuses to shake hands with Belarus officials, AP story via Boston.com detailing negative relations between two anyway those are some english refs that could be incorporated. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Got them all in except for the first--I hate numbers. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established per sources. Who would be interested in this subject... well that's another issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is one of the "actual articles" I've been clamouring for, and I commend Drmies for producing it. No, it probably wouldn't have happened had it not been mass-produced, but what is important is that it has happened. More than foreign minister visits or memoranda of understanding being signed, we have here solid evidence of a relationship that goes beyond the trivial - not a crucial one for either country, by any means, but one about which coherent narrative prose has been written. Somewhere in Uruguay, Groubani is smiling. - Biruitorul 05:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, if you'll pardon my French, Groubani can--OK, I deleted that even before "Show preview." Thanks, BTW. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Some seem to have a very peculiar understanding of WP:N, but for all the others it's clear this one passes the criteria, at least in its current form.--Aldux (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - After re-write this article seems to be a pass per WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A good demonstration that there will very often be content; equal blame for this is on the creator, who should have put in more, especially knowing there were objections, and the nom, who should have searched, especially knowing that sourced material could be found for many such articles. The distinctive merit of Misplaced Pages, is that generally someone will be found to step in and do the work. DGG (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per improvements made per WP:AFTER and notability shown. Schmidt, 03:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to EU-Belarus relations and delete. Everything nontrivial would be better placed in a wider context. Just because you can have an article on a topic, doesn't mean you have to. MyDog22 (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Disregard this last comment: user has been banned indefinitely as a sock puppet. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of valid information in the article now to make it notable. Plus a notable topic to begin with. Dream Focus 12:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - lots of good sources, with a useful discussion about why the Netherlands does not currently have an ambassador to Belarus. See my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep....Goed Gadaan! Recent Improvements as noted by Editor:DGG and MichaelQ.--Buster7 (talk) 11:01, 22 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.