Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 MERGE to an appropriate article. Foreign relations of Liechtenstein seems popular and already to cover the topic, so I'm just going to redirect there. As an aside, it is not helpful for someone to say "yeah, redirect to some article on Wikipedia". -Splash - tk 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein

2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This refers to an incident that received substantial coverage abroad because various media picked up on an "odd news"-style agency report during a slow news day. It received no coverage in Switzerland and Liechtenstein that I am aware of, though. That's because the Swiss Army is a militia comparable to the U.S. National Guard, its part-time soldiers have no handheld GPS, and consequently they stumble over some border very frequently (although admittedly usually not in company strength), and nobody cares about it or writes it up. Essentially, this merits a brief mention in Military of Switzerland (which urgently needs a rewrite, I notice), but not an article: we are an encyclopedia, not Wikinews. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I can't think of any reason this article should be kept other than that it's funny. There was an accidental incursion of Spain by some Royal Marines near Gibraltar a few years ago that was actually a minor diplomatic incident. I'd consider that the bare minimum for a real article. (We have none on that one.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge in full and Redirect to whatever seems appropriate, I'm not going to suggest a target. I believe this meets the notability requirements considering its coverage in the media (it doesn't matter if Switzerland and Liechtenstein news agencies didn't give a damn, WP:N doesn't specify where the sources have to come from so long as they're independent, reliable, non-trivial...). However, short of Switzerland invading a few more times, there is no hope of this article gaining any new, significant information. I would support keep as well though, stubs are certainly allowed to stay as stubs. Someguy1221 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename; using "incursion" in the title is probably too POV, but there actually is a reliable source (BBC), as silly as this whole non-incident was. *** Crotalus *** 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Liechtenstein where the incident is already covered in as much detail as this deserves. Davewild 08:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no use as a redirect, and certainly no use as an article. This is as notable as a Mexican migrant illegally crossing the border into the US. --NMChico24 09:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Foreign relations of Liechtenstein or similar. There are sources available for this but it doesn't quite merit an article. Hut 8.5 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - just not enough substance to keep an article on. Agnetha1234 15:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I think I read about this in a New York Times op-ed. It fails the "ten-year test" for significance. YechielMan 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I feel I must comment on the recent votes for deletion of this article. NMChico24, does every Mexican migrant who crosses the border wind up on every major news station and newspaper in the United States? Hut 8.5, why doesn't it merit an article? It's a widely published incident, please give a reason. Agnetha1234, "substance" is irrelevant. This is why we have stubs, an article should not be deleted for being short, so long as what's contained within is proven to be notable and is sourced. YechielMan, how does this "ten-year test" pertain to Wikipedia guidelines? I never read it in a policy before. Further, an incident passing notability guidelines at one point in time passes notability guidelines always (ignoring changes in the guidelines themselves). Just because people stop talking about something doesn't mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. And yes, this incident was only widely publicied for its amusement value, but WP:N doesn't care why something is notable, only that it is. No one here has yet to contest that this incident received substantial coverage in English language media, so barring that, someone please explain to me per Wikipedia policy/guidelines why this should be deleted. I appologize if that seemed a bit rash, I'm just befuddled here. [User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, imagine a certain celebrity steps out of her car with no underwear on, is photographed doing so, and this is noted in "Odd Enough" columns around the world. Should we write an article on the Paris Hilton Indecent Exposure Incident (22 May 2007)? No. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we don't write an article on every singular incident that newspapers cover. We write articles on notable subjects. The military of Switzerland and the foreign relations of Liechtenstein are such subjects, where this incident may be covered, but the incident in and of itself is not. Sandstein 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. And that certainly sounds notable enough for a piece of an existing article. And this is why I don't oppose merging the content in full, but what I'm actually left wondering over is all the delete delete delete votes. Someguy1221 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably because one of seven paragraphs in foreign relations of Liechtenstein is already devoted to coverage of the incident. There's not much more to merge; any more would give this incident undue weight in the context of the article's subject. Sandstein 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Military of Switzerland under an "Incidents" section, since it would be more appropriate there and since it is poorly referenced. --CrnaGora 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Foreign relations of Liechtenstein. --PaxEquilibrium 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge an invasion of a country, even accidently, is noteworthy enough. after all this event is comparable in scale to the accidental nazi invasion of Poland ( some nazi troops crossed the border too early and had to retreat quickly ).
  • Keep or merge. I'm okay with merging, but I don't see what the appropriate target article would be. Is this a Switzerland article or Liechtenstein article? It could be mentioned in both, I suppose, but I generally don't care for content to be repeated over multiple articles (creating a potential for contradictions). Cmprince 21:35, 24 May 2007 (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.