Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of visits made by the prime ministers of (country)

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The result was Withdrawn - no point in this continuing any further (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of visits made by the prime ministers of (country)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Propose deleting Category:Indian prime ministerial visits

Propose deleting Category:Lists of United States presidential visits

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Ok, I guess, prime ministers/presidents make lots of international trips. But listing every single one of them is not encyclopedic information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding every single article in the category, since it's all the same. Also, per WP:NOTBURO, nominating the category jointly with the articles since if the articles get deleted, the category will also have to go. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding every single other country that I can quickly find (so far only the US; please wait for AWB request to be completed) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is being WP:POINTy. Many of these visits are in fact notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The bad faith accusation is entirely unwarranted. A few of the international visits themselves might be (a very few). That does not justify keeping any of the excessively long database-listings of (nearly) every single one of them. It's a case where even if a few are notable, the lists are so unwieldy and useless cruft that it's better to just nuke the whole lot. Also an issue of WP:LISTN, as although maybe a select few individual state visits are notable, the grouping as a whole is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all We've had this discussion not long ago. Look at Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of government and how many things are there. The leader of a nation visiting another nation is a historical event, covered by media in both nations, and belongs in this encyclopedia. Are you planning on nominating all of them for deletion? Dream Focus 23:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes, this format being popular does not mean there is no problem with it. Given how frequent these things seem to be (judging be how long some of those pages are), diplomatic visits are about as historically significant as the Queen of England's farts. Wikipedia does not cover everything simply because it can be proven to be true. An encyclopedia is a "summary of knowledge". I don't see what knowledge is being summarised by all those pages, except maybe the WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of every routine diplomatic visit (and many of these lists are not even referenced properly, also failing WP:V). I mean, the amount of rain that falls in a given year is also an interesting historical statistic, but we don't have articles listing "Yearly rainfall records in (country/place/...)". We have Climate of the United Kingdom, or Climate of the United States. By the same token, and to keep the example's theme, we should be just fine with United Kingdom–United States relations. Both of these are examples of encyclopedic coverage. The listcruft is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I'm not really seeing support for deletion in the text of WP:NOTDATABASE. None of the numbered items (e.g. "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases") match these articles, and the introduction to the section reads To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. When I look at the higher-quality articles in this category, like List of international prime ministerial trips made by Justin Trudeau, or List of international presidential trips made by Bill Clinton, I think they do satisfy this, in that they give sourced contextual details about each trip, they're not merely a list of dates and locations. Colin M (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen anybody argue the literal wording of NOTDATABASE over its spirit. The pithy little paragraphs in those two lists (out of many hundreds of other examples, such as those currently listed here) could just as well be covered in Foreign policy of the Justin Trudeau government or the equivalents, without needing an indiscriminate listing of all of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is, we can all agree on what the wording of the policy is, but the "spirit" seems much more nebulous and subjective. I'm open to considering your interpretation of policy here, but you haven't given us much to work with. Your nomination just links to WP:NOTDATABASE and an essay, and then makes a bare assertion that the information is "not encyclopedic". Colin M (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd have thought the articles speak for themselves. They basically include a nearly-exhaustive (probably more so for more recent world leaders) of international diplomatic visits; with no additional data beyond, occasionally, the routine "X met Y and discussed Z". I argue that it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to host a database for this; and that in the few instances where there is actually useful information, having this in a disjointed list is not helpful to the reader - it would be far better to have the relevant information in the relevant articles about a wider topic (take the example with the weather I was giving; or others) than as a table of routine and unremarkable occurrences. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These pages were created so that people can't flood the main articles of these politicians by writing about the visits. It is still just fine to keep them. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So now they flood these pages with them instead? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 6 September 2021 (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.