Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Kosovo relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I discounted all arguements relating to the previous AfD. Consensus can change. The question is then is there enough notable material outside that which could be at International recognition of Kosovo? The majority of valid votes say no. However, there's enough disagreement to call no consensus. I suggest serveral months before a renom. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Kosovo relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

looking at the previous AfD, the keep votes provided very little in terms of significant third party coverage of actual relations. Australia's relations with Kosovo don't extend much more than International recognition of Kosovo. yes Serbia got upset with Australia, but they got upset with every country that recognised Kosovo. yes Australia took some refugees but so did almost every rich nation. Australia has no peacekeepers in Kosovo, no diplomatic mission and no bilateral agreements. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Either way, no reason for its own article. Either delete or merge with Foreign_relations_of_Australia or the equivalent for Kosovo. There is no good reason to have a separate article covering this topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added what seems to be the necessary information to Foreign relations of Australia. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the requirements of WP:N just as it did when it was nominated last time. Renominating articles until you get the result you prefer is not productive.-- Mattinbgn\talk 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * note that consensus can change, and it was in no way a clear cut keep last time. I am renominating because of the lack of significant third party coverage besides the routine recognition of Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything untoward about renominating an article six months after it is closed as no consensus. Many articles get deleted on their 2nd, 3rd or subsequent nominations. If an article is closed as a "no consensus", it is incumbent on all of us to try to reach a consensus the second time around. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mkativerata. if it was an almost unanimous keep last time then it would not be productive to renominate. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not getting the results you want, doesn't mean you should nominate it again months later, and keep on trying until it ends the way you want it to. Why not contact everyone who participated last time, and ask them if their opinions have changed.  I strongly doubt they would.   D r e a m Focus  12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing here that has any relevance outside of Australia's recognition of Kosovo, which is covered in International recognition of Kosovo. More people favored a delete than a keep last time, though it wasn't overwhelming (8 vs. 5) and it closed as a no consensus.  Still, the reasons advanced for keep were along the lines of "all relations between countries are notable" or "all relations with Australia are notable" or "all relations with Kosovo are notable" which is why we have articles called Foreign relations of Australia.  As LibStar points out, Australia doesn't have peacekeepers in Kosovo, nor diplomatic personnel nor treaties-- nor any trade that I can see.  Mandsford (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mandsford Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as explained by Mandsford MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies notability requirement per User:Mattinbgn above and the numerous independent 3rd party sources at Google News covering Australia's recognition of Kosovo, several of which are included in article. Suggest that if there is a real concern about the notability of this article, nominator (who initiated the first Afd) notify all participants from the first discussion that he has renominated the article for deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Australia's recognition of Kosovo like many countries is covered in International recognition of Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That assumes there's nothing else to the relationship than the recognition, which is obviously not true. More information has been added since this Afd was started.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yes there is more such as Serbia being upset and Australia accepting refugees, but this applies to most Western countries and Kosovo. there is no real relationship beyond recognition, you can scrape the barrel as much as you want. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the article and you'll find I've added information sourced from the New York Times, the BBC, the Telegraph. Hardly barrel-scraping. I see that you haven't taken my suggestion that you alert the rest of the people involved in the first discussion (raising the specter of bad faith editing) so I guess I'll have to take that upon myself. Your arguments are against policy and your continued attempts to delete these articles are generally detrimental to this project. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * here we go again, not debating the notability but resorting to "your continued attempt to delete these articles are generally detrimental to this project". WP:KETTLE on your part, you failed to notify me (and other AfD participants) of the deletion review for Romania Sri Lanka relations LibStar (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe that's because you didn't ask. More to the point, a deletion review is an appeal to an administrator based on the perception that there has been inappropriate use of policy, it's not an attempt to find a new consensus on the facts like we have here. As far as debating the notability, I think I've made my points and you should know where I stand. There is significant 3rd party coverage of Australia's recognition of Kosovo, an essential element of foreign relations between nation state. On top of that element of the relationship, there was significant 3rd party coverage of the Kosovar refugees is Australia before the recognition. That issue's not covered in the article International recognition of Kosovo nor should it be. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yes it's clear that you want every bilateral article kept. I support many combinations being kept but not this one. one does not need to ask about being notified of deletion review when you openly questioned my nomination. that is a something you complain about when others don't do it. WP:KETTLE. A deletion review is not a one way conversation with an admin, it still uses consensus of several users particularly those that participated in the AfD to come to an outcome, you're trying to pretend notification is not necessary. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Cdog, although he does pretty much seem to want all of these kept, he did notify those who !voted delete the last time around of the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yes I note that, but in a deletion review in trying to get a delete overturned he failed to notify those who !voted in the AfD including myself as nominator (which given that the majority voted delete...) then he complains and gets upset that I don't notify people in a renomination, I've participated in 100s of renominations and rarely seen that happen. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Libstar, if really thing I should have notified you about that, why don't you try to have Deletion_policy changed, because as of right now, there's only a responsibility to notify the deleting admin (which I did ). Since this is pretty off topic, and the relevant editors have now been notified, why don't you let me have the last word on this one.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There is insufficient coverage of this bilateral relationship to warrant its own article. The bilateral relationship is not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have notified all the editors to this discussion who commented at the first discussion except those who I have noticed have already commented here and those that have been permanently blocked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little has changed in the article since the last time I !voted delete. (And I note that almost all of the changes happened after it was nom'd again. The article say pretty much untouched since the last time). Not even an embassy in Kosovo. Australia allowed some refugees to stay there for a while, before sending them home. Refused to take in refugees. No evidence of significant bilateral agreements. In short, nothing beyond the mere pedestrian government interactions. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. It was OK last time, and it remains OK. That Australia decided to recognize the country is important to both Australia and to Kosovo. That recognition all by itself might make an article, quite apart from the general one on recognition of Kosovo.-- there are enough sources for it.   As there are other relationships as well, this article is appropriate.  There are trading relationships, for example, which need to be added.    DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * what are the trading relationships between Australia and Kosovo? LibStar (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Recognizing them is enough to make an article? So since every nation on the planet recognizes Iceland, we could justify an article for every one of them? The article Iceland-Ghana relations should be a great reading experience. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard Tuvalu recognises Luxembourg, perhaps we should create an article? there has to be a few sources which say this right? LibStar (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the GNGs? Don't they apply to articles like this one too? Yilloslime T C  15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. I second DGG. Rebecca (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is notable for several reasons. It gives a history of Australia with Kosovo going back to 1999. This includes Australia giving aid to Kosovo. It also mentions refugees from Kosovo being granted with Australian visas. It mentions the recognition, diplomatic relations with one another and it mentions Australia at the ICJ, which I have recently expanded. All this proves notability of the article. This article goes far beyond Australia recognising Kosovo as some users have suggested. Also I think it was in bad taste that LibStar did not notify me the creator of the article when he/she put nominated it for deletion. IJA (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, if at first you don't succeed... the arguments in the prior discussion still stand and I see nothing in the nomination to indicate that circumstances have changed since then. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep per User:IJA - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, and also as article has been further improved since nom by editor Cdogsimmons. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment these are the extent of improvements by Cdogsimmons, Australia like many countries have at one stage or another refused to take refugees from one country or another. and as I said in the nomination, Kosovo refugees were relocated to most Western countries. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The repeated attempts to have these relations article deleted is wasting a lot of people's time (including my own). Since this issue has come up repeatedly, I'm going to quote the policy at Articles_for_deletion: "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. However, group nominations that are too large or too loosely related may be split up or speedy-closed." I suggest the nominator nominate all these relations articles so we can find a general consensus about them and put this issue to rest.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been brought to my attention that at least one editor thinks this comment was off-topic. I disagree but perhaps there is a more appropriate forum to discuss the general issue. If you'd like to add your thoughts on my above suggestion I invite you to do so at my talk page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * no this debate was brought up about 8 months ago. those wanting to keep these type of articles strongly opposed group nominations, so we are left with individual nominations which I agree can be time wasting but the keep voters want it that way, I will say that I agree many are notable but many are not. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No-one is arguing that all bilateral relationship articles should be either kept or deleted. A case-by-case approach is entirely proper as all bilateral relationships will be different. If you think a guideline for bilateral relationships is necessary, Wikipedia talk:Notability is the appropriate place to raise it. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Solely on the basis that Kosovo is not a country and that I suspect articles like this might be trying to make the case that it is, in violation of WP:NPOV. We don't have, for example, Australia-California relations. On the other hand, there was considerable scope in Australia's foreign policy regarding Kosovar refugees at the time of the NATO conflict. I don't think anyone would make the case that now, or any time recently, there has been a significant relationship between the two entities. I would vote differently on other "* relations" articles, especially those where a demonstrable and verifiable current relationship (or current antagonism, for that matter) exists. Orderinchaos 10:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Admin concluding this AfD I don't think User:Orderinchaos's comment should be taken seriously. It is a very biased and is a POV comment. His/her reasons do not justify deletion of this article, they rather just express his/her own personal opinion on the Kosovo dispute. He/she needs to understand that WP:NOTAFORUM. IJA (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I make the policy point that there is an NPOV issue with having a bilateral relations article between a country and a territory with a disputed country status (effectively, a region with no legal status beyond its own declaration of independence and its recognition by some other countries). I make the notability point that there is no significant relationship between the government of Kosovo and the government of Australia to merit an article. At the time that Australia had a significant engagement with the region (accepting the refugees in 1999), the region was indisputably part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but Australia's engagement was not with the government of that entity but with NATO. So the part relating to refugees should go in Australia-NATO relations if such an article exists; the rest would not hold up an article of any kind. Yes, it's my opinion, but informed opinions are the building blocks of consensus. I don't much care if the debate doesn't go the way I think it should, but there's no harm in putting my view forward and arguing it. Orderinchaos 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But what is important is that Australia says that Kosovo is a country, recognises and conducts diplomatic relations with Kosovo therefore that is one reason as to why there is so such thing as "Australia-Kosovo relations". It is not POV to say this, it is fact. I have also since pointed out in the article that Kosovo is only partially recognised and that it's status is disputed to improve NPOV. This will help to make sure that the reader is not misguided and will warn them of Kosovo's disputed status. IJA (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think Orderinchaos has a valid point. I disagree with him about keeping the article, but he has a point. What could push the notability of Kosovo's relations over the edge is that it is recognized as a nation state by other nation states. I don't think we can say that Kosovo is not a country. This displays obvious bias. But we should certainly recognize the fact that certain countries (which are generally recognized as countries) do not recognize it as a country. A lot of countries didn't recognize Israel for a long time. China doesn't recognize Taiwan as a separate country. It's relevant, especially here, where the recognition by Australia is a significant factor in the relations. In my opinion, in these circumstances that recognition should actually be given extra weight.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Australia's recognition should be given extra weight, especially as it was one of the first countries to recognise Kosovo and because it promised to lobby for recognition of Kosovo. I do oppose presenting Kosovo as a fully recognised country, I think it is important that we mention that it's status is disputed. However I don't think this can be justified as a reason to say that we shouldn't have articles regarding Kosovo's relations with other countries. Regardless of what one may think, Kosovo conducts in diplomatic relations, that is a fact. We could mention that other countries refuse to recognise Kosovo and engage in diplomatic relations, but Australia is one of the 65 counties which does so. IJA (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Well referenced and enough depth for a standalone article. Remember 14 facts from 14 sources are mathematically identical to 14 facts from a single source. They have the same depth of coverage and this is not synthesis. Wikipedia says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Taking 14 facts from 14 sources is just standard research for any Wikipedia writer. Taking 14 facts from a single source isn't research, it is just condensing someone else's research into a Reader's Digest version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has improved since it was nominated. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is fine, just as it was months ago when it was nominated by the same person who nominated it this time.  D r e a m Focus  12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the last result was no consensus, so not a clear keep or delete result. consensus can change and renomination can allow a more clear result to be obtained. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, means you didn't get the result you wanted, and are going to try again. You don't hope the people last time will show up again and change their minds, you instead hope that whatever random group appears in the AFD will this time agree with you.  Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.   D r e a m Focus  12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am having trouble seeing how deletion of this article improves the project.  I know that's a 10,000 ft. comment, but I see a lot of back and forth on this AfD and the prior AfD, and that's always a foundational question I ask myself in an AfD like this.--Milowent (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, per gingerbomb, per Mandsford, and per my reasoning last time. This topic fails the general notability guidelines: there are no independent, third party sources that cover this topic directly and/or in detail. Yes, there are scattered news media references to Australia's handling of the Balkans war, and yes Cdog has done as job as could be done synthesizing them into a treatment of the subject; but no, this is not a proper way to build an encyclopedia (which is supposed to be a tertiary source). The subject matter is best handled in International recognition of Kosovo and Foreign_relations_of_Australia. (For the record I notified on this AfD on my userpage.)Yilloslime T C  16:03, 5 February 2010 (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.