Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there is no consensus to delete any of the three, but Malta–Romania relations and Philippines–Romania relations are on decidedly shakier ground than Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations, and may well have been deleted if nominated separately. As such, there is no bar to so renominating them. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations

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

None of these three pairings has much notability to it. Trade is limited. Significant coverage of the topics is entirely lacking. Member State of the European Union already tells us Romania and Malta are in the EU; Diplomatic missions of Romania (and of the others) already tell us about any embassies. Nothing indicates Romania's position on the Bosnia issue is any different from the common positions of the EUPM or the PIC. And so on. Biruitorul Talk 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)




 * Delete - I've seen a whole lot of random combinations for foreign relations at AfD lately... Delete, as per whatever my reasoning in the rest of them was (probably something to the effect of not notable)--Unionhawk Talk 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As is the norm with these articles there is no substance, no references and no sources. Ergo, no notability. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There seems to be a large amount of sources for Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania however not so much the other two. Here are some sources for Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations, BBC article on Military cooperation plan, a article on military mission, article on Bosnia EU bid there are more that I will add in a few minutes, just finding the best ones of many to post. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  Bosnia-Romania on the basis of the sources found, as would be expected for two countries in the same region. Nominating three such diffferent geographic situations together indicates indiscriminate nomination, the desire to get rid of poor articles without considering their possibilities. . DGG (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - no, my nomination was well-considered. It's telling that neither European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina nor EUFOR Althea mention Romania's (or any other country's) involvement in peacekeeping in Bosnia - surely we'd want that information there first? As for the other articles: bilateral defence cooperation, great, pretty meaningless (especially between a NATO army and a non-NATO "army"); and as for supporting the EU bid - everyone supports the Western Balkans joining the EU, nothing special about that; see Accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the European Union for more. Marcusmax, if you do manage to expand with more than trivia, let's at least consider merging into Foreign relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina - I doubt it'll be very long, and there's plenty of room there. - Biruitorul Talk 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point Biruitorul I am just throwing the sources out there, I kind of agree with you that alot of this seems trivial so I am currently undecided. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other Sources - Sorry about the delay, but here are some other sources to go with what I already mentioned a article I believe on a Presidential visit, a trade agreement between the two and a believe a source detailing it . And one more source from the BBC although a better version is needed. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - 2 x embassy. + Keep Philippines–Romania: 2 x embassy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is starting to seem like disruption. The presence of the embassies is documented in the lists of embassies! If that's all we have, why duplicate the content with yet more meaningless stubs, when it's already present? - Biruitorul Talk 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Biruitorul, you delete several articles, and refuse to accept 32 sources as enough for an article to be kept, and then accuse another editor of disruption? Ikip (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop hounding me already. I didn't - indeed can't - delete anything. Those sources did not refer to the subject as such, but rather were inferred to do so, and thus are not admissible. Have the decency to leave me alone. - Biruitorul Talk 06:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep First of all bunching up these articles is not a good way to do an AfD. Further they have embassies in the respective countries and per sources of Marcusmax. Ikip (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarity purposes, please define "they", and note that the presence of embassies is already recorded elsewhere. - Biruitorul Talk 06:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I find no sources (certainly these entirely unsourced stubs are of no hope for the general reader hoping for some minimum quality standard) that establish notability for these relationships; while the various words may appear in the same article from time to time, no article, anywhere, discusses these so-called relationships that i can find. That it is verifiable that b&h might have a trade tax deconflicting treaty with Romania is not evidence of notability. It would be like justifying a BLP about me on the basis that i am known to "draw breath."Bali ultimate (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They both are working together on many things, both members of the various initiatives listed in the article. They thus have a relationship with one another.   D r e a m Focus  03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be clear what pairings you mean by "they". And also, have you given any thought to how any of these three nonsense articles could ever viably fit into existing structures? For instance, what article could possibly link to one of these, or is WP:BTW not of any concern here? - Biruitorul Talk 06:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please avoid words such as "nonsense" when referring to articles about bilateral relationships. They might not be notable in some cases, but they are not "nonsense". Fences and windows (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole series - at least the ones mass-produced by User:Groubani - is a set of nonsense articles. Some of them have the potential to be expanded out of a nonsense state, but by no means all. - Biruitorul Talk 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They appear sensible to me. They are almanacical stubs. Information repeated in different forms are always being experimented with in Wikipedia. Infoboxes repeat what is in the article, lists and categories are redundant and acceptable. The lede repeats what is in the article. The GDP and GNP of the United States is mention in detail in a half dozen lists and economic articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There should be more sources to support notability of this article than for the vast majority of the the other bilateral relations stubs, on account of their geographic proximity and former membership in the Soviet bloc. This would be a good candidate for "article rescue" buffs to try and improve within the 7 day AFD period. Please look for and add multiple reliable and independent sources with significant discussion not of the countries per se, but of their foreign relations specifically. A mere checklist that there's a news item that the head of X visited Y is a much weaker demonstration of notability. No opinion at this point. Edison (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of points: Bosnia and Herzegovina has only been independent since 1992, after the USSR ceased to be; and the state it was part of, Yugoslavia, was Communist but did not belong to the Soviet Bloc. - Biruitorul Talk 07:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. Still, former commie countries in geographic proximity. More closely related than many of the random pairings. Edison (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations, based on the sources foudn above, but delete the other two. In addition to the other arguments, please consider (a) both were once part of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire at different times, (b) both are former countries that were under Communism, and (c) they have many cultural ties in common - from Slavic languages to Roma (gypsies).  They have about 6 or 7 factors in common, according to my standards for notability. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * a) Whatever connections the two had under Ottoman/Austro-Hungarian control was slight, and can be covered elsewhere; in any case, it has nothing to do with the modern states; b) Bosnia and Herzegovina was not actually a country until 1992, and in any case the entity it was part of, Yugoslavia, was not in the Warsaw Pact; c) there are under 10,000 Roma in a Bosnian population of over 4 million, and in any case that has zero to do with interstate relations and is covered at Romani people; d) the Romanian language is not a Slavic language; e) it would help to have sources on the interstate relationship rather than plucking out random facts you happen to think connect them. - Biruitorul Talk 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected about claim d) - Romanian is a Romance language. I think the other facts show notability - as a group of facts rather than as a single fact. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll just say Romania has closer cultural ties to France than to BiH, so I'm unpersuaded, but if someone can actually do a robust expansion, more power to him. - Biruitorul Talk 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's add the following: Romania was not ever "part" of Austria-Hungary, it was an [admittedly much smaller] separate state throughout Austria-Hungary's existence. Transylvania, the Banat and Bukovina were part of A-H and then of Romania, but what is that supposed to add to the matter, since they were incorporated at a time when B-H joined Yugoslavia as a subregional entity. The argument about the Ottoman Empire is equally contrived: Romania did not exist as a single entity for most of the time it was under Ottoman rule. The entire sentence at the end of the current article is therefore absolute nonsense, and forms part of a flood of trivia whose purpose is to whitewash the lack of a notable phenomenon. Dahn (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations. This, in addition to the other keep arguments shows a significant relationship. Smile a While (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:PSTS, and try at least to find a secondary source validating that document's importance. We don't allow original research here. - Biruitorul Talk 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all my own google searchs show trivial relations at best. Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania is the most "noteworthy" but doesn't have enough reliable sources to merit an article. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've spent time doing some careful sourcing. I don't know what searches anyone else did, but I came up with evidence of clear notable relationships, including military cooperation involving Romanian troops on the ground, state visits, trade agreements, issues with sex trafficking, support for EU membership etc. I've expanded the article on the basis of this. This is a prime example of an article that should never have been nominated, and which editors should not have voted for. Sources were not exactly easy to find, but far from impossible, and the fact that both countries are in South-East Europe/Balkans could have given a clue that they might have a notable relationship to be uncovered. I've seen people criticise the Article Rescue Squadron, but I'm only here because of it. Far from just voting Keep, I've rolled my sleeves up. I'd like to see a more such positive work from self-declared deletionists. The key to improving articles is not arguing, but finding sources. Fences and windows (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see some of those same sources had already been brushed aside by Biruitorul. Would anything short of Bosnia nuking Bucharest satisfy notability? Fences and windows (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, romaniandaily.ro is a blog. More important is the lack of sources discussing the relationship as such - we have here a pastiche of news bits designed to give the impression of notability, but nobody's ever written about "Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations" as a topic, and instead we have editors surmising what's notable about the purported topic, probably in breach of WP:PSTS. Oh, and there was no Bosnian conflict in the mid-90s. :) - Biruitorul Talk 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was a conflict in the mid-90s; that's when the troops were there. If it reads poorly, please clean it up. Fences and windows (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the story is from Bucharest Daily News, if you actually look at the source. I think your idea of what constitutes a source about an article is odd. Does it need to be a news article with "Bosnia-Romania bilaterial relations: the latest" as a title? How is a state visit not about the relations? Or military cooperation? Or trade agreements? Would Wikipedia really be improved by binning a now reasonably written article with several reliable sources backing it, or can you just not back down from a deletion? Fences and windows (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. You didn't get by what I meant when I said there was no Bosnian conflict in the mid-90s. Click 90s and you'll see more clearly.
 * 2. Sure I looked at the source. A news story hosted on a blog is still a blog entry. We need to link to the original source, or just not link.
 * 3. What you just named is what you've surmised constitutes bilateral relations, and in may be a very reasonable conclusion, but your conclusion needs to be validated by secondary sources: see WP:PSTS. I've changed my mind during AfD many a time, if warranted. - Biruitorul Talk 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is extreme pedantry some kind of hobby of yours? Fences and windows (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above cannot be considered an argument for keep as per WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually they are the only considerations that Wikipedia requires. Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE is a personal essay, and not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy requires that topics be notable and verifiable, and this topic is both. Generally it is not a good idea to quote personal essays per WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about WP:GNG? - Biruitorul Talk 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, I used the word "considered". as such your vote argument is weaker as you haven't backed it with any explanation or sources. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Notable and verifiable"? Prove it. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability and verifiability are determined by external media coverage, and there are 13 references. How do you plan to prove they are not notable and verifiable? Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY is a page/redirect/essay that Richard himself created, which pretty much smacks of WP:POINT to me. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't use "smack" in Wikipedia policy either. WP:POINT requires "disruption". Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like its self-referential nature, it being a personal essay... nothing pointy here, as he was just using a link on a talk page not editing to be disruptive. There's far too many wikilawyers bandying around policy here, can we just focus on whether there are now sufficient sources to demonstrate notability? Fences and windows (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - While the relations between two countries that are less than 75 miles/120 kilometers from each other should be inherently notable, the relations between these two nations are the subject of secondary sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. In addition to the English sources found above, a few seconds of searching brought up several more Romanian ones directly about the relations between these two nations.  --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A visit (news/trivia) and a visa-free travel agreement (idem) are not something we'd ever bother noticing outside this series of nonsense articles. Would we ever bring up the visit in Băsescu's biography, for instance? Of course not - and of course you give no thought to how this article could fit into existing structures; no article could possibly link to this one, meaning WP:BTW is being ignored. Such things happen every week of every year. Moreover, let's mind WP:PSTS - that you surmise these events constitute evidence of notable relations is nice, but it's not actually validated in the context of a source discussing BiH-Romania relations as such. - Biruitorul Talk 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The relations are notable, that's why secondary sources have written about them. It doesn't matter that you think the relations are "trivial."  "Trivial" coverage is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as "passing mention".  Even a vis-free travel agreement is covered in a non-trivial matter (again, not a "passing mention").   Your alluding to the sources about relations between these two nations and attempting to downplay the significance of the relations ("a visit" and "a visa-free travel agreement" for examples) is in fact confirmation of the non-trivial coverage the relations between these two nations have received. --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you declare something to be evidence of "Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations" doesn't necessarily make it so, without validation. One doesn't simply pluck bits of trivia (or news, if you prefer) and declare them evidence of anything. Why isn't this mentioned at Israel–Italy relations, this at Slovakia – United States relations, this at Egypt–Israel relations, this at Czech Republic–Slovakia relations, this at China–Russia relations, and so on? Obviously, because outside AfDs of this type, editors behave in a usual fashion: they think twice about the validity of information, how it fits into existing structures, what its real relevance is, and so on. They look for broader discussions of the subject to see what importance it's given beyond a day's headlines. In the mad quest to find "sources" validating trivia of this sort, normal procedures are thrown out the window, and we end up prioritising irrelevancies.
 * And of course, still no hint as to what article could possibly link to this one -- apparently it's destined to sit in isolation. Rather than do that, let's strip away the irrelevant content from it, see just how little is left, and be done with it. - Biruitorul Talk 05:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't know how editors behave, since there a very large number of editors, and they don't act the same manner. Some believe it has met the notability requirements, and wish to keep it.  They aren't going to waste time arguing with you, since you've clearly made up your mind.   D r e a m Focus  00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may: the point of Biruitorul's comment, a comment which I find a exceptionally pertinent one, is that irrelevant facts that we wouldn't normally mention at all are abusively seen as decisive in assessing the relevancy of other articles. If we were to apply the same standard to articles on more notable relationships, we'd end up in the most ridiculous of situations. Consider: at this moment, the Bosnia-Romania article uses a reference to a 2001 police raid inside Bosnian brothels. Now, apply the same standard to the France-UK article, and imagine for a moment including mention of French brothels and raids as related to UK women in France. Would one, hell, could one possibly justify lowering the bar to include that level of trivia in the more prominent case? We both know the answer is no. But once it's useful as a device for "rescuing" an article on nothing at all, sure, it's "important", it's "vital", it's "decisive", and, what's really impressive, it came up on a google search. Dahn (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep -obviously ofnotability. Sources exist which indicate noiability, I'd imagne there is even more in native languages.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a native speaker of one of those native languages, I have to say I wouldn't. What comes up in searches is some coverage of a single official visit. Dahn (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles. PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure plenty of trivial material can be gathered to "create" a valid topic ("look, I can google Bosnia and Romania together"), but this isn't really worth a separate article. Dahn (talk) 23:03, 11 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.