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 and cleanup. Cbrown1023 talk 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange Agreement[edit]

Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange Agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP is not a crystal ball. This agreement does not exist and may never exist. Time enough to have an article on it when it does. The article contains an old statement by Australia's justice minister which is now outdated on negotiations. The rest of it is really not to the point, and seems to be cut and pasted from somewhere. Wehwalt 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've removed a whole slab of inappropriate material before the afd. Merbabu 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. change my mind. I don't think it deserves its own article and hence won't be that upset if it is deleted, but a refined, shortened, heavily referenced one should be OK if merged. I removed a slab of apparent original research, I'm sure there is more. Merbabu 12:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but cleanup - it may not be a very good article, but it isn't speculation per WP:CRYSTAL; the external link given below clearly states that this agreement is in the pipeline, and it's sourced from a reputable website (ABC). Walton monarchist89 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1] - the link in question

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 12:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article could be renamed 'Proposed etc agreement' or could be expanded to Aus-Indo justice cooperation with more information on the Extradition and Crim Assistance Cooperation Treaties which DO exist. DavidYork71 12:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is the agreement still in a proposal? — Indon (reply) — 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge - Should we have one specific WP article for a specific bilateral relation between two countries? How does this article notable enough? I would suggest to merge it into a section of Foreign relations of Indonesia Australia-Indonesia relations. By the way, I noticed the creator suggestion above. Is the subject (agreement between Indonesia and Australia) still in a proposal? In that case, I would vote for delete. — Indon (reply) — 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've introduced the article to the happy stick. Please have another look and see what you think. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given DavidYork71's other contributions to Wikipedia, I'd say we're dealing with someone not very familiar with Wikipedia and its policies:

[2][3] (sexually explicit - [4]) and [5]. Rklawton 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to something like Australia-Indonesia relations unless and until this is more than just a proposal. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, rename it to "Proposed Australia-Indonesia...". Calling it by its current name makes it sound like it's already in existence, which it isn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentStill think it should be deleted. But if not, suggest merging content to Schapelle Corby or Bali Nine articles, since those are the people who it would most affect.--Wehwalt 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThis agreement is also of importance to Indonesian illegal fishies and immigration violators. Let's not distract our focus just to the big-titted marijuana Queen in denial. I'm currently developing Australia-Indonesia Treaty Relations. Big plans. Look at the article again; it describes an issue of current topical significance in both countries. DavidYork71 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentA dozen comments so far and only the initiator demands deletion. Time to remove delete tag. DavidYork71 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. There's one other voice that's been raised arguing for a deletion or a merger. Additionally, unless there are very unusual circumstances (such as an AfD on the "Indonesia" article, for example), AfDs tend to run to the full term. It doesn't appear that this particular one will result in the article being deleted, but a pre-emptive removal of the tag is bad form. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. There is sufficient evidence that this is an active project and is notable enough for mine to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. There's enough there to keep, but not too much to merge. We can always split it out again later if it grows. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable... but only if it actually gets signed. Otherwise, it's all basically speculation and quotes. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc etc. Lankiveil 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into Australia-Indonesia_relations. (Caniago 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment Should be renamed to "Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange", whether it gets kept or merged, and regardless of whether the agreement gets signed or not. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wiki has capacity to tolerate articles about foreshadowed events (which may not occur as envisioned) see UFC 70, World War 3, World War 4, 2024 Olympics, Superbowl 42. It also has capacity to acknowledge failed causes, see Republicanism in Australia. References to the article demonstrate that the sealing of an agreement has some reasonable likelihood of occurrence and should not yet be dismissed as a failed cause.DavidYork71 12:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag ((future)) until/unless signed. Orderinchaos78 15:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWould it make people happy if the article were renamed "Negotiation towards a . . . "?--Wehwalt 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - why can't this article be a section in Australia-Indonesia relations ? — Indon (reply) — 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and let the editors discuss a merge on the talk page. The article is not attempting to be a crystal ball as the content is well referenced, and DavidYork71 is doing a great job of expanding this article. If in the unlikely event that the agreement falls apart, it can be merged then. John Vandenberg 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Vandenbergs argument. AntiVan 05:38, 24 February 2007 (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.