Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austria–Moldova relations


 * 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  &#124; Talk 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Austria–Moldova relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There are no multiple, independent sources providing significant coverage of the topic, as far as I can tell after searching in English, Romanian and German, so this should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Thank you Biruitorul, for checking to make sure no references existed in this case delete is obvious. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just a few seconds of searching brought up multiple significant sources directly about Austria-Moldova relations,
 * | Österreichs Wirtschaft entdeckt Moldawien (German)
 * | Moldovan-Austrian relations have bright prospects (1999)
 * | 2007 Austrian foregin ministry -- Austrian official: Moldova's path of reform in interest of Austria, EU
 * | Austrian business representatives interested in strengthening trade relations with Moldova (2008)
 * | Moldova, Austria to organize more joint trade activities in 2008
 * | Moldova: OSCE chairwoman optimistic about Dnestr settlement (2000) (there's probably a lot more), thus easily establishing the topic passes WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see. The two Moldpres sources aren't independent (it's a state news agency), so those are invalid. Two of the links talk about potential strengthening of ties - for that, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Another one is a fairly trite declaration that is far more about Moldova-EU relations than Moldova-Austria ones. Finally, we have a link about a declaration from Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who, yes, is an Austrian, but was speaking in her capacity as OSCE chairwoman - in other words, nothing to do with Austria-Moldova relations. Back to the drawing board. - Biruitorul Talk 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moldpres is a highly reliable source - if you cannot trust the official publisher of Moldovan laws who can you trust?  SilkTork  *YES! 20:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've completely misunderstood what WP:CRYSTALBALL is. WP:CRYSTALBALL would be assuming there will be significant sources in the future, not significant sources in the present that discusses possible future events.  Go ahead and AfD the proposed might-never-happen  California-Nevada Interstate Maglev if you truly believe in your personalized application of WP:CRYSTALBALL.   And by attempting to cite WP:CRYSTALBALL, you're actually admitting there are secondary sources directly about Austria-Moldova relations.  Somehow "banning" state sources as sources on anything to do with the country they're funded by is  Wikilawyering in its most silly form (I dare you to to AfD any article about the United Kingdom which all sources come from the state-owned BBC.)--Oakshade (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Silktork, do review WP:GNG - sources used must be independent of the subject - not works produced by those affiliated with the subject. You cannot use publications of the Moldovan government (which Moldpres is) to validate statements about the Moldovan government's activities. It's not a question of trust, but of lack of independence. And even if we could use it, those two reports are what we call news - stuff that would never, ever make it onto Wikipedia were it not for the forced "expansion" of this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul Talk 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, I have two points to make. Even if I've misunderstood WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'm admitting no such thing. Seriously, what would the article say, "In 1999 the Moldovan President said 'there exist bright prospects for Moldova and Austria to expand their bilateral mutually beneficial cooperation'"? And...? What possible relevance does that have? That doesn't even begin to tell us about the purported topic, "Austria–Moldova relations". Second, the BBC example is a red herring: the BBC is (at least in theory) "independent of any private or governmental influence"; for Moldpres, there is good reason to suspect the lack of impartiality of an agency run by a state that just stole an election - indeed, Moldpres is under the control of the Moldovan President, a Communist and a close ally of Moscow. - Biruitorul Talk 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand the need for independent sources. However, I don't think that we can ignore Moldovan Press Agency articles as sources, any more so than we can disregard a U.S. State Department release on the grounds that it's not "independent".  I think that any POV with in a government release has to be taken with a grain of salt, but unless an agency has a reputation for exaggeration or unreliability (North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc.), the press release is evidence that a particular nation considers its relations with another to be noteworthy. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Moldova and the European Union. If there is enough material for a separate section within that article, great, and then when it becomes large enough to be spun out into a separate article, wonderful. Drawn Some (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on multiple reliable sources indicated above which fully establish notability.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I thoroughly demonstrated above, all "sources" presented thus far fail to discuss the topic - "Austria–Moldova relations" - in significant depth. They discuss trivial events and declarations that Wikipedians have deemed aspects of that relationship, but that's not good enough. - Biruitorul Talk 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd say it was notable. They are both in Europe and there appears to be evidence out there of a diplomatic relationship. This isn't one of those articles concerning to tiny island states on opposite sides of the worlds. Having said that more could be done to actually establish that notability in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Diplomatic relations yes, as List of diplomatic missions of Moldova tells us. Significant diplomatic relations? I have my doubts about that, as my analysis of the sources presented so far indicates. - Biruitorul Talk 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only sources I found were from the Austrian or Moldovan governments about trade agreements. There's nothing to write an article about. Fences and windows (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country;s foreign ministry. Edison (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTDIR is probably the least of our worries about the articles. If an article has nothing more than the addresses of embassies or consulates, than it fails the notability test.  Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing administrator please note that Edison has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs. As I have copy and pasted this notice also. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And what is your point? The stubs fail the same guidelines. It is proper to point that out, and the "Delete" arguments in each case have as much merit as if only placed in one AFD. Edison (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. Sources cover events, not the topic of the article as a whole. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep More than enough examples of suitable sourced content. DGG (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since no reliable, independent sources discuss this relationship in any detail beyond the trivial. In fact, i find no sources at all that discuss this relationship. While i find news articles in which both the words "Austria" and "Moldova" appear, i find none (or books, or academic papers, etc...) that treat this as a topic in its own right. And no, I can beat neither the Austrian NOR the Moldovan national football teams at Tennis. I hate tennis.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Embassy in Vienna. The two countries are connected by the Danube (see Template:Danube). Austria has large investmets in Eastern Europe (which are about to bankrupt the country). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The embassies are documented elsewhere; the Danube connection is irrelevant (and anyway the Danube barely touches Moldova); no citations for investments. - Biruitorul Talk 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, meets notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets several of my factors for notability, including reliable sources, as noted above. One single source should not be discounted just because it covers one event.  Notability about a concept can be found by a series of factors or events.  The whole is shown to be notable by individual events over time. By the way, was not Moldova once part of Austria-Hungary? Bearian (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)  By the way, I have never argued that all 20,000 relationship stubs are notable - to the contrary! Bearian (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Moldova was never in Austria-Hungary; it was under Ottoman and then Imperial Russian control. - Biruitorul Talk 15:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have added some content from sources identified by user:Oakshade to the article. Clearly it will be easy enough to find more and better content and sources. Austria is actively investing in Moldova, and Moldova welcomes this. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While Austrian Empire is clearly the "predecessor state" of today's Austrian Republic, does modern Moldova view itself as a/the successor of the historical Principality of Moldavia? (Geographically, today's Moldova corresponds roughly to the eastern half part of that principality until ca. 1812; the western half is part of Romania now). If it does, then whoever wants to keep the article may well investigate the contacts/conflicts between those two entities - they shared a border for several centuries, after all, with the Principality of Moldavia being an Ottoman dependency of sorts, while Bukovina and Transilvania were Austrian and Hungarian. respectively. Vmenkov (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion. I would be inclined not to go that far back, but to focus on more recent relations, perhaps the last 20 years or so. Somehow relations between the Principality of Moldavia and the Hapsburg empire seem a different subject. But I would have no objection if someone wanted to add a historical summary, which has some relevance: modern Austria does seem to see that they have a special role in the countries formerly part of or bordering the empire. For now, I would prefer to focus on getting better sources for current involvement - treaties, trade, banking, telecoms etc. - which should be plentiful but unfortunately are mostly not in English. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - see Moldovenism. However, Moldavia was far more involved with Poland and with Transylvania (well before the latter became part of Austria-Hungary). - Biruitorul Talk 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - important ongoing relationship and the sources added clearly meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clear evidence of a relationship, as demonstrated by more sources than many other articles could wish for. HJMitchell    You rang?  18:51, 10 May 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.