Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Croatia 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. NW ( Talk ) 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Belarus–Croatia relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

there has been no real improvement since the last AfD, and it really should have been closed as "no consensus" note it was closed by an admin who is now banned from closing bilateral AfDs. my original concerns stand. non resident embassies. 3 minor bilateral agreements, and almost no third party coverage except football clashes. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to either Foreign relations of Belarus or Foreign relations of Croatia. No significant notability for the bilateral relations, both former communist republic states. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 13:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notable or significant relations. AfD #1 was a flawed finding. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep rather than duplicate identical information in two separate articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that is hardly a reason to keep. how does this article satisfy WP:N or WP:GNG? you have provided no evidence of significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The references in the article speak for themselves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. When neither country has an independent embassy in the other, that's usually a tip-off that we're not dealing with a relationship that is too significant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For the same reasons of the last AFD. Are we going to have to have the same discussion every 6 months, for the exact same article, just because one editor doesn't like something and is determined to keep trying until he gets the results he wants? If someone who speaks the native languages of these nations were to search major credible newspapers in those nations, you'd surely get plenty of coverage of agreements between them. The official website of the nations is always a good place to look for information as well. Not sure why that link was removed from the article, but I'm putting it back in.  D r e a m Focus  03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * if you want to keep an article the best way is to show evidence of third party coverage. If someone who speaks the native languages of these nations were to search major credible newspapers in those nations, you'd surely get plenty of coverage of agreements between them that is purely an assumption on your part and we do not keep articles because you think there are a lot of sources in another language, that's a pretty weak argument for keeping without evidence. any article can be renominated for deletion, this is within the WP rules. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly doubt there is coverage of these events? Do you honestly believe the newspapers of two nations involved in a treaty, would not publish an article about it?   D r e a m Focus  12:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article provides sufficient sourcing to establish notability and will benefit from the addition of third party coverage appropriately translated from the two nations. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 references including 2 from primary sources ie government websites? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they are a primary source. When a government news agency issues a statement on a trade agreement, it is a secondary source. The text of the agreement is still the primary source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is sufficient information here to show notability. Multiple bilateral agreements and expanding relations, a common Slavic heritage, an oil pipeline from Russia that crosses Belarussian and Croatian territory , along with joint membership in the Central European Initiative not to mention voluminous third party coverage of Croatian-Belarussian sports, easily justify the existence of this article. For two relatively young countries, there is a large amount of information available in English, a language which is not the official language of either country. Suggest searching for more third party sources in Belarusian, Russian, Croat and Croatian.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adequate sourcing to support article. Two countries, same neck of the woods. Bilateral trade is microscopic, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Two countries, same neck of the woods. is not a criterion for bilateral articles, there have been numerous examples of 2 countries within Europe having their article deleted. the key test here is WP:N. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As seems fairly typical for these sorts of articles, every bit of information that can be gleaned has been, and yet there is still very little to go on. Yes, they are both in Europe, but that's about it. Absolutely minimal coverage in third party reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole is fun, but not useful ... the article doesn't even mention that they are both in Europe. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the opinion above mine, which says they are in the same neck of the woods. I do not pass comment on how 'useful' your comments are, so I would appreciate it if you could do the same for me. Quantpole (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then avoid hyperbole and stick to issues of notability and verifiability. Saying "Yes, they are both in Europe, but that's about it" doesn't discuss any Wikipedia rules for inclusion. It is just an amusing rhetorical devise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not engaging in hyperbole, but expressing an opinion. It is one that I am not alone in holding. In future, if you start debating the validity or usefullness of my opinions, you will be ignored. In AfD I am only interested in discussing the merits of articles. Quantpole (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - a collection of meaningless trivia, not a valid encyclopedic topic. Yes, they have ambassadors (though not in each others' capital); yes, minor officials from both once met in Switzerland; yes, they both belong to some obscure body; yes, a few million dollars are exchanged between them annually; yes, they've signed a few pieces of paper together. And yes, I'm sure Croatian officials could find Belarus on a map, and vice versa. But no, none of this is in the least tantamount to the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG. It's stuff we'd never normally notice outside this series of nonsense articles that some have decided to "expand" in a game of "watch me do this", and it's not something we should countenance. - Biruitorul Talk 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't try to define trivia, it is too subjective. It does define significant coverage and it "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This article certainly meets the standard as defined by Wikiedia. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per outstanding improvements by Richard Arthur Norton. Even if all cant agree that the sources are high enough quality to establish noteability, there's a good IAR rules case for keeping these articles.  Specific X-Y bilateral relations are not only of accademic interest but of great  practical importance in many ways, e.g. to companies trading or considering trade opportunities between the two countries, or for organisers of international summits and other events. Even  merely collating the primary sources would be valuable, and thanks to Mr Norton we're well beyond that here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those additions add nothing of substance beyond "X and Y signed an agreement on Z", which is precisely the problem. This is trivial cruft at its worst, and short of declaring war on each other tomorrow, there is nothing that can elevate this article beyond trivia. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The relationship between these two countries is not covered substantially by reliable sources unrelated to the two countries. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 1 December 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.