Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Mongolia 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada–Mongolia relations

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

This is one of the many articles on non-notable bilateral relationships created by. No evidence of notability is provided, and it seems highly unlikely that there is a significant relationship between the two countries. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep - like almost every bilateral pair, it is easy to establish notability if one spends a few minutes checking. Start with a scholarly paper to establish notability of the topicThis article is very interesting reprinted greatlyfor instance, this reprintminor mention (but Canada being the second largest investor in Mongolia certainly screams notabilityclaim repeated here (also minor)Not independent, but nice and so forth (don't want to waste all morning on it). Wily D  11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - all you need to do is look for the right info Lemniwinks (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete With apparently only one source on the topic of international relations between Canada and Mongolia, the notability criteria don't appear to have been met. ("significant coverage in reliable secondary source s  that are independent of the subject")Yilloslime T C  21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - there really isn't much there. Sure, there've been the usual under-the-radar exchanges like ceremonial visits that happen every week, and there's been some teaching done of Mongolia in Canadian universities (which isn't really relevant to the relationship between the two states, as these universities are either private or run on the provincial level), and there's also been some trade (again not relevant to the state relationship: both countries are free-market economies, so presumably most of the trade has involved private actors). Other than that, there isn't much left, and as bilateral ties are not inherently notable, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WilyD. Also, the presence of a Mongolian embassy in Canada indicates that the countries do care about maintaining diplomatic contacts. It is OK to pair two countries together to a "relationship" article if there is an active diplomatic or economic relationship which can be written about. When Canada is the second largest foreign investor in Mongolia, that should matter. Madagascar-Kiribati would probably not work. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those "contacts" (one assumes) largely concern trivial matters like stamping visa applications. Given there's not much more to write about on the diplomatic relationship, we shouldn't have the article. Also, as I've pointed out, it's not the Canadian government, but rather private Canadian companies, that are probably doing most of the investing. Such information can be (indeed is) covered at Economy of Mongolia. - Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Bazonka (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - See WP:NOREASON. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then... Keep per WilyD and because international relations are inherently notable. Bazonka (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? See Articles for deletion/Luxembourg–Serbia relations and other discussions listed there: that is not the community consensus. - Biruitorul Talk 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, even if there is not much to say about the diplomatic relations, there seem to be commercial and academic relationships as well. Is there any reason not to include them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary T In Shoes (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — Hilary T In Shoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Has anyone considered doing an article on Liechtenstein-Nauru relations yet? Or Bhutan-Swaziland? Or even Paraguay-Papua New Guinea? Now there's an opportunity... Peridon (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There should be a variety of these articles, even they are stubs.  Historic events are not personalities. There is no biographical time frame in which something has to become "notable."  All historic events are "notable," and we never know their future status.  If International Relations is to be a living topic on Wikipedia, then anyone who knows anything about Canadian-Mongolian relations should have a place to put that knowledge.  It's obvious that Circum-Polar politics is changing very rapidly (I'm surprised that Canada is finally moving a bit more consciously toward resolving its issues with the various related nations - including Mongolia).  Keep it.--Levalley (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
 * Delete. We already have articles on the foreign relations of both countries. We can cover the most relevant material there and link to anything more externally we can't fit in the article. Combination articles are not a good idea. Even if you discount a couple of states, making articles for every combination of sovereign states gives a ridiculous and unmaintainable amount of articles (203! = 6.5*10381 to be exact). This article merely says they both have embassies, which is entirely unremarkable. Perhaps something could be written, but this is not the right place for it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think you get that many articles. (2032-203)/2=20503 is the number of articles if we have every two-country combination. 203! is the number of permutations for the 203 sovereign states, I don't think anyone has argued for an article on each of those (though we may well have the permutations ranking them by population and area). Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still an unmaintainable amount when we could simply have 203 articles instead. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor responsible for these articles doesn't seem to be even attempting to meet the notability criteria, and doesn't explain their rationale, so they may well be aiming to create all 20,503 articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you just have one article per country you will be explaining the same topic in two places. Maybe that's OK if it's very short, but if it starts getting longer the two versions will probably get out of sync. Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Some bilateral relations articles are notable, as evidenced by the apparent continuous existence of the San Marino–Uruguay relations article. In any case, the fact that Canada and Mongolia care enough to maintain bilateral relations in the real world means that it probably deserves a space here. Just my opinion. In any case, the case fails to assert lack of notability specifically through WP:NOTE.  Jd 027  talk 16:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WilyD. While there isn't much to say about the topic of "relations between the governments of Canada and Mongolia", there is quite a bit to write about the topic of "relations between Canada and Mongolia". I do not see why we should limit articles about bilateral relations to interactions between governments only and ignore interactions between non-governmental organizations (though ideally these would not be the main focus of bilateral relations articles), such as companies, cultural associations, educational or research institutions, and so forth. I do not agree with the statement that bilateral international relations are "inherently notable"—I don't think we should consider any topic to be inherently notable (see Notability) and I doubt that there's anything to say about Bhutan–Swaziland relations—but I do believe that many of them are indeed notable. By the way, I don't see the relevance of the "20,503 articles" argument: an additional twenty thousand or so articles, many of which already exist and are perfectly valid, is hardly noticeable in context of the nearly 3 million other articles we already have. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, but even if we do include non-governmental relations, there still isn't that much to say. True, Canada is the second-largest investor in Mongolia, a fact duly noted here, and courses on Mongolia have been taught in Canadian universities over the years, which isn't really notable (or if so, could be noted perhaps at East Asian studies). - Biruitorul Talk 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only mention of Canada in Economy of Mongolia is to note that Canada was Mongolia's 2nd-largest export partner in 2007, which is distinct from Canada being the second-largest investor in Mongolia. In addition, this journal article indicates that "since 1997 ... diplomatic activity as well as independent research and development cooperation led by Canadian universities has increased" (emphasis added), which suggests much more than just a few courses. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's certainly room in the Economy of Mongolia article to expand on Canadian activities there. As for the second part: without wanting to seem tendentious, it would certainly be helpful if we could see the whole paper and analyse more clearly the intensity of that activity rather than take the abstract at its word. - Biruitorul Talk 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't we try and expand the article instead of talking about why it should be deleted? It doesn't seem anyone here as actually put effort, opposed or against, into making it better.Lemniwinks (talk) 19:59, 17 March 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.