Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Indonesia 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. One (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria–Indonesia relations

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

Contested prod. This article fails WP:N; there are no multiple, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic, and the embassies are already recorded in the Diplomatic missions of Indonesia & Bulgaria lists. Biruitorul Talk 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is not "generally notable". Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:NOTDIR and probably a few other acronyms. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep excellent almanac entry for Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including, ,  ,  , , ,   LibStar (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, embossing WP:ILIKEIT with "almanacical" won't make your argument more legitimate. Towns may be inherently notable, but there's been no such finding for bilateral relations, and it abuses the purpose of AfD to keep ignoring consensus in this manner. WP:GNG must still be met here. - Biruitorul Talk 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to read the rules, not just point people to them and say its in there somewhere. Wikipedia rules state at GNG that: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." (my emphasis added) I don't see any misconstrued original research resulting from these primary documents. What original research are you witnessing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "almanac" argument is a red herring. Even if we assume that Wikipedia, as a unique reference work, should include almanac-type entries, one still needs to establish the notability of the specific entry under consideration to decide whether it should be included or not.  There are currently about 193 nations in the world, so unless it is being asserted that the 37,056 articles on bilateral relations between them are automatically notable, some evidence needs to be presented that each specific relationship is notable enough to warrant an article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there aren't 37K of them written, right now there are a few hundred where info is available. Even at the full 37K that would be less than 2% of all English articles. That number, 37K, is fixed and as Wikipedia doubles it will be less than 1%.


 * Please reread my rebuttal at the other posts. No consensus has been formed yet, or we wouldn't need the AFD process. Once a consensus is formed we don't use the AFD process anymore per, say, the delinking of dates. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As no consensus that these are inherently notable exists, we still need to establish notability. - Biruitorul Talk 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Bulgaria as potentially useful search term. Rklear (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And how was it determined that factual information about any township that exists should be in Wikipedia? Townships just have to exist. That is the nature of an almanac, it is all inclusive. Exclusion reduces the utility. It would be like listing the GNP of counties but just having the top 20. So long as factual information exists all permutations should have entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Absurd. No evidence that there are relations to have an article about. About as notable as the Lichtenstein-Micronesia relations article would be. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete hardly any coverage. First two listings of this search show some cooperation but it's on a very limited level. eg wanting to cooperate through business lobby groups, no high level trade agreements. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find sources to establish notability through sources such as,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . - Marcusmax ( speak ) 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The earthquake relief stuff is here; as for the rest - technical agreements? Eh. Cooperating against terrorism? Well, they weren't going to cooperate for terrorism, were they? Point is: no in-depth coverage of the relationship as such, just flotsam. - Biruitorul Talk 04:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians don't determine what is worth writing about. The media do in what they cover. Your comments are a perfect example of your personal subjectivity. In the end, if it is covered by a media outlet in Google News, it is a reliable source of what was deemed important enough to record. You are also showing a hefty regional bias. What was important enough to cover by Indonesian media outlets may not be interesting enough for you personally, but Wikipedia isn't just for you. There is also no rule excluding info from multiple articles. We have hundreds of articles with biographic information on the recent presidents of the US. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but: Wikipedians also don't determine what constitutes a particular topic; reliable sources do that. We can't declare "technical agreements" to be evidence of "Bulgaria–Indonesia relations"; we need sources dealing with "Bulgaria–Indonesia relations" to do that for us. - Biruitorul Talk 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relations are relations are relations. They can be diplomatic, economic, or sports related. You appear to be defining it only at "high level" diplomatic relations, for unknown reasons. What source do you find as unreliable?
 * It's not a question of reliability, or of how I define relations. The problem is that we are picking what to define as relations, instead of allowing reliable sources --ones that actually discuss them as such--to do so. - Biruitorul Talk 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the dictionary is available for people who don't know what a relationship is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a remarkable misinterpretation or avoidance of a point, Richard Arthur Norton. The issue is not "defining a relationship", but appealing to secondary sources which discuss said relationship as a notable phenomenon, not synthesizing various pieces or trivia or primary source statements to say "they exist". We all, know that they exist, but not everything that exists need have a separate entry on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where an original idea is being synthesized from the primary sources? That is the reason they are to be used with caution. All almanac entries use primary sources. We eschew secondary sources for almanac entries. All the economic data used in every article on a country comes from the IMF, World Bank, and CIA, all are primary sources. When writing about governments we always turn to primary. Almost all the articles on Senators and Judges come from their official government biographies. Take a peek here and count how many biographies are based on the primary source of the official congressional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  —SatuSuro 14:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established by reliable and verifiable sources. This is exactly what should be on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. I think it could be expanded further.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the "diplomacy of..." articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in this argument, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a chart is a nice additional feature, but I don't think it should replace the stand-alones that have enough information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as even the countries' official embassy websites, such as here, present a rather detailed almanic/encyclopedic listing of their relations by presenting their history, trade statistics, etc. Thus, a legitimate topic for those researching international diplomacy, history, trade, etc.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not totally forget WP:GNG and its requirement of sources "independent of the subject" - surely that's not a road we want to take. - Biruitorul Talk 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, let's. I'd rather we have Notability/Historical/Non-notability.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And we're discussing this personal preference because? Dahn (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the community does not uniformly support using notability as a standard for inclusion, but fortunately in this case the subject is notable enough for inclusion anyway. Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article is yet another experiment in "see me do this". Dahn (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, reading my entire previous post here will perhaps show that my rationale was by no means limited to that. On the other hand: am I expected to come up with a new variation on my posts for every goddamn "bilateral relations" AfD that fits into the exact same criteria? When I agree with what was said in the nom, is it necessary that I take the time to creatively plagiarize it just so I won't say "per nom", or necessarily come up with new things to add to the same basic argument with which I identify? But okay, here we go: there is nothing notable or standalone within the article, and the "rescue" effort is merely a study in how not to write an article, itself a clue that there's nothing whatsoever to say about "B-I relations". The repetitive stuff about what Bulgaria in international aid, an inventory which is worth only passing mentions in the local Bulgarian newspapers used as sources, veers into the most insignificant of details, and is coupled with off-topic nonsense about ANTARA's partnership with BTA. Nothing of that is of even remotely encyclopedic quality, and I seriously doubt it would make for an almanac entry (if turning wikipedia into an almanac is any way feasible or desirable). Dahn (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per our first pillar at Five pillars, we are also an almanac. And yes, people should write original reasons for each one of these articles as they vary from one to the other regarding availability in sources and extent of the relation.  Here, we clearly have significant information of both encyclopedic and almanaci quality.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great selective answer. In all fairness, incorporating features of an almanac is not the same as being an almanac, however spinned. But your entire comment is simply not an answer to any of my points, particularly not to "I seriously doubt it would make for an almanac entry". And what "we have" is certainly not significant coverage of the relations as such, but marginal inventories of blankets and an inconsequential exchange of pleasantries between two agencies which do not in fact represent the two states (equivalent to the abusive inclusion of rants about sport encounters in such articles). These are as much an account of bilateral relations as would be counting the number of Indonesians who have dated Bulgarians. Filler, clutter, nonsense. Dahn (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have significant enough of coverage to justify an article due to the coverage in multiple reliable sources and the real world interest in the subject by students of diplomatic, economic, and political history. It is reasonable to suspect that among the millions concerns with these important subjects, people can and will come here trying to determine what kind of relations these two noteworthy countries have and thus we provide a refrence guide service by providing this verifiable information.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I keep reading your statement that the info (about blankets?) is "important" and of "real world interest" etc. etc. Nice rhetoric, but nothing could ever substantiate that something as trivial, synthesized from passing newspaper mentions about scattered events to say "relevant relations", gains even contextual importance. And no, a reference guide we are not. Particulalry not so when the article says: "the answer to your specific search is that these two countries exchanged pleasantries". Not how it's supposed to work, contrary to the inclusionist agenda. Dahn (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Inclusionist agenda"!? Seriously now, inclusionists are not mass nominating all articles on bilateral relations for deletion.  Given that this article contains non-trivial research from reliable sources, it meets the criteria of what we are, an encyclopedia, which is beyond any reasonable doubt a reference guide.  Besides, the answer to the question is that these countries have not merely exchanged pleasantries, but that Bulgaira was one of the first to recognize Indonesian indepdence, that they estanlihed embassies in each other's capitals, have a healthy trading relationship, etc.--all of which are of valid interest to various peoples.  Just because it is not of interest to you hardly matters.  So long as it is relevant to some of our readership and is indeed backed by sources, then that is all that matters.  We don't have articles and remove articles because of what we editors think, but for the good of our readership and it is pretty clear that our readership is interested in this topic of real world notability.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are those mysterious "various people" that are always invoked but never show up? Below, an Indonesian speaker tells you that the article needs not be kept, and you tell him that most sources must exist and he should be looking for them... The only argument about "what editors think" is therefore yours, only it hides behind a non-existing readership. What's more, wikipedia does not guide itself by what anything the readership wants and may be looking forward to, but on what functions as a topic - saying "we need a separate article around trivial facts just because some readers may be interested in those trivial facts" is certainly not the encyclopedic way. wikipedia has a reference desk, it is not a reference desk for all possible searches and subjects. what's more, plenty of users may be looking on an essay about The third most common uses of toothpaste or learning material on Popeye-Bluto relations, but that doesn't mean we'll start creating articles around them, even if we should come up with a gazillion references assorting these words in one way or another. Dahn (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Far more editors view and edit articles than ever comment in the AfDs. With all respect to the editor below, one person from a country is not a spokesperson for all people from the country just as I am not for my country.  This functions as a topic as we have a clearly focused and structured article that multiple editors believe worth keeping.  That's good enough for our purposes.  And what you deem trivial may have high importance to others.  Think of the scene in the first Street Fighter movie where Bison tells Chun Lee how a moment that was meaningless to him meant everything to her.  Making hypothetical apples and oranges comparisons never helps in these situations, especially because Popeye and Bluto are not real world countries that have had relations for decades of a diplomatic and economic variety.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial is trivial, A Nobody: the objection addresses the nature of info in relation to other info, not its special meaning to readers. In fact, your post is itself proof of that distinction, not just through the movie reference, but through the fact that it fails to distinguish between discussing a relationship as notable and proclaiming that all details of the relationship are notable ("Popeye and Bluto are not real world countries that have had relations for decades of a diplomatic and economic variety"). Without the trivial and extraneous info I was discussing, the article would simply say: Indonesia and Bulgaria have relations. That and nothing more (or, at least, nothing that would not be solely linked to a primary source). As you and I both know, that simple statement would never validate a separate article. What you claim I should assume, regardless of what I say to counter it, is that the other details are inherently notable - when, in fact, they were only made "notable" by the fact that, without them, the article would simply be dismissed as what it is - nothing on nothing. As for "hypothetical apples and oranges" - puh-lease. You are the one persisting in claiming that there must be silent users out there with special needs that can only be addressed by this article, and this argument is only supposed to be used in your favor - to your "Far more editors view and edit articles than ever comment in the AfDs", I can and will say, using the same "insight": "maybe, but they all agree with me". You see, they're hypothetical. And this while you rejected the only concrete example presented - whom I invoked not as "a spokesperson for all people from the country" (an argument which you put into my mouth), but as a person with more access to the very sources you requested. But you see, I discuss concrete, not hypothetical things, which is why I am not going to engage in this conversation any further - I'm sure the readers have comprehended my actual objections. Dahn (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet, this particular case is hardly trivial by any reasonable standard. Relations between two countries with millions of inhabitants across multiple decades is just obviously notable.  There are not simply silent users, but nearly a half dozen in this AfD who clearly believe the subject is worthwhile.  Heck, I learned some things while researching and working on this article, i.e. it had educational value, which is after all the whole point of cataloging human knowledge in a paperless encyclopedia.  In any event, wanting to delete this should no be such a big deal.  When kept, we have the benefit of the article educating some readers and potentially improving further.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete i find the absence of reliable independent sources that discuss this relationship in any depth beyond the very trivial convincing.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where have you looked? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Google and the other obvious venues. Additionally in this case since saya bisa bicara bahasa indonesia (i speak indonesian) I took a look at a few of the reputable/large newspapers there, i.e. Kompas, Media Indonesia, Republika, Tempo (magazine). Here's the news search at Republika . So far this year, we have a brief that a bulgarian was named a special ambassador to ASEAN, some coverage of some head-scarf controversy in bulgaria, some news about kosovo and a mention of an indoensian music group that collaborated with a bulgarian orchestra on an album. None of these are about the bilateral relationship, and the only story there that even has any connection to a private indoensian citizen and a bulgarian one is the article on the music group and its recent album, Harmoni Cinta ("Harmony of Love"). Antara, which is essentially a government PR service/mouthpiece, i ignore in all instances. Thanks for asking. Sincerely.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found enough from my Google searches to at least justify keeping the article, but yeah, given your username, I was hoping you might have access to some Indonesia specific sources that Google wouldn't turn up. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you found enough sources on google "to at least justify keeping the article", who are we to argue, right? Apparently, the only use you find for a reply by any of the other users should be helping you "source further" an un-sourcable article, and this regardless of whether they actually vote "delete". Unreal. Dahn (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, more time should be spent improving these articles than indiscriminately trying to delete them just because it has "X-Y relations" as a title. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, then. Enlighten us with the "enough sources" you found attesting the subject's notability. Maybe there's more about the exact number of slippers Bulgaria sent into Indonesia. Dahn (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are displaying regional bias. Your disparaging information that doesn't hold you interest, but was important enough that it was recorded either by one of the governments involved or by the local media. A reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source, even if it doesn't hold your personal interest. No reference work requires that every article be of interest to every reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The souces mentioned throughout this discussion have already been sufficient to justify inclusion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Circular arguments. But really, I'm done with this discussion. Dahn (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to all editors Please move long discussion to this AfD's talk page. It really is getting to way too long for discussion here. thanks. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources to justify an article. That's really enough to be said in order to keep it. DGG (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources seem reliable, and even though the page could be considered a stub it is not a one liner stub. I have found a source or two which someone could integrate into the page. I would do so myself but at the moment I am very busy and unable to do so. -- Hamster   X  08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've looked through the sources provided above and there's a lot of crap in there, but, once you take the time to sort through it, from what I can see, there is enough (just) to establish notability. HJMitchell    You rang?  17:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are other articles in this category that need some help with sourcing and they are located here in the article rescue category. Help with references will be appreciated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly notable. Referenced but not merged into Foreign relations of Bulgaria. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:31, 15 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.