Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Mongolia 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The result was withdrawn by nominator Recent additions gave it enough to make it barely pass enough that I'll withdraw the nomination. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada–Mongolia relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing actually notable about this random pairing. It survived AfD a year and a half four months ago with the implication that there was more notability. Mongolia has an embassy in Canada, but Canada hasn't bothered to put one in Mongolia. The article cites support and donations from non-governmental organizations as evidence of a significant relationship between the nations governments. Canadian companies are investing in Mongolia, and the govts. entered into one trade agreement that facilitates that, but that seems to be about it. One pretty mundane agreement isn't saying WP:N to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator, not notable embassies, Mongolia is close to People's Republic of China and Russia. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The relations between countries are not exclusively the relations between those countries' governments. They also include the relations between the countries' peoples. The nominator's personal opinion about whether these relations are "mundane" is irrelevant to the Afd process.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the mundane is relevant, since that is part of what I find to be non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:OR. It's your opinion something you subjectively call "mundane" is unnotable. That has nothing to do with out policy on notability. (See WP:N). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not WP:OR. It's called an opinion and believe it or not, not only am I allowed to have one, but they are acceptable in AfD's. Notability is not always a cut and dried matter. It is often a matter of opinion. We talk about "consensus" all the time, which is defined as the opinion of a group. That is the purpose of these discussion. Next time you want to make a bad faith accusation, please at least have it right. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could clarify where I accused you of bad faith. I honestly am not sure of where I did such a thing. (Take it to my talk page).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right where you started accusing me of WP:OR. Having an opinion in an AfD is not OR. That's what these discussions are for. There is no brightline rule that seperates what is or is not notable in this situation. There will always be debate over whether or not coverage is significant or not etc. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to accept. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that your comment consists of original research is not an accusation of bad faith. Please assume good faith in the future yourself.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not OR! WP:OR refers to content in the articles, not opinions expressed in an AfD. OR is not allowed, so if it applied to everything posted in an AfD discussion, every comment you've made requires a verifiable, reliable source. Do you have those? Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?
 * I took what you were saying to mean that you equated your personal opinion that the agreement was mundane with its non-notability per wikipedia's WP:N policy. That to me still fits the description of OR (because to say the agreement is unnotable implies either that the agreement is improperly unsourced, or that you know personally that the agreement is unnotable for some other reason and you are using yourself as a source). I understand that you think OR only applies to the article mainspace but I disagree. If you used your own personal knowledge to influence debate on a talk page about the inclusion of material in an article, I would call that original research. That is essentially what you are doing here too. You are using your own unsourced opinion (that the agreement is unnotable or mundane) as an argument against inclusion of sourced information (the deletion of this page with result in the removal of sourced information from the mainspace). Perhaps there are arguments on both sides here. I hope you beleive me however that my comments were not meant to accuse you of bad faith.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accept your explaination that you weren't making a bad faith allegation. I do not, however, think you are interpreting OR correctly. We're not talking about article content or an article talk page. We are talking about an AfD discussion whic is, by it's very nature, going to be base largely on opinion. It is not OR, not in violation of any policy and is perfectly acceptable. Your repeated attempts to brush it under the heading of something that is in violation of policy is wrong-headed. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I accept the fact that Afd's are often determined by personal opinion, I think that there should also be an attempt to look at the article as objectively as possible in accordance with the policies in place. For example, we seem to be having constant disagreements about the notability policy. I for one would like a little bit more clarification about what constitutes "significant coverage". Since the interpretation of that policy seems to leads to consistent disagreement, I think the policy should be clarified. I see the logic of your argument but I also don't see where it says WP:OR does not apply to Afd discussions. The issue seems to me to be undetermined at this point. Many things to be clarified.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep First I would like to add that this article was nominated a couple month ago for Afd not a YEAR AND A HALF as the nominator of the 2nd deletion said. Yes they isn't a lot of history between these two countries, but to delete an article about their relationship is wrong. Why??? It's important to explain the relationships of countries regardless of quantity because history is important to note and isn't that the point of and encyclopedia: to give important information. Yes it is important to give the info of Canada-Mongolia relations even if there is few.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was looking at another AfD that had been a year and a half ago. But thank you for making a huge freakin deal out of that with capitals and all. It was 4 months ago instead of a year ago. Big deal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well here's a quote from you post "it survived AfD a year and a half ago with the implication that there was more notability. A year and a half later, there is none." Your whole point is on the fact that a year later it hasn't got any notability. So it's a big deal since it has only been 4 months. --Fire 55 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I applaud your error free life. The rest of us humans do make mistakes from time to time. I amended it. But guess what? 4 months later, it still isn't notable. Now are you going to address the actual issue or continue wasting space over an already acknowledged error? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I see no new arguments raised by this nomination for deletion that were not addressed in the first one. See Undeletion_policy. The subject matter's notability has been established by the proper sourcing of two independent 3rd party sources specifically detailing Canada-Mongolia relations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. I didn't feel the need for a "new issue" because I don't believe the notability has been established.
 * Ok. So you disagree with the result of the last Afd. You acknowledge that that's the reason you nominated this for deletion for a second time in four months. You have also refused to notify the people who took place in the first Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, here comes the smoke and mirrors again. I don't see the notability. Period. That is the perfectly legitimate rationale. I have never made it a practice to notify everyone involved in a previous AfD. I'm not required to. I notify the author of an article if I nominate one. In this case, the author is banned, so he was not notified. Notification is not required, it is suggested. I take part of the suggestion and leave another part. I think that is a silly suggestion and since that is only a suggestion, I am free to not implement it. You left me a message about it on my talk page. I responded to it. Now you bring it up here. Pick which place you are going to whine about the topic and stick to it so I don't have to respond to you twice over the same topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to tell the people who just spent a lot of time debating this that you are throwing out their result because you disagree with it that's your business. And you're right. It's not required. It's just WP:CIVIL courteous. Have a nice day.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does WP:CIVIL say or imply this.Yilloslime T C  22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True. But of course, WP:CIVIL doesn't say anything about notifying editors who are substantial contributors to the page. However, it explains at Articles_for_deletion that "it is generally considered courteous" to do so.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why are you citing WP:CIVIL when it doesn't say it? And why isn't User:Fire 55 over here screaming about the error in capital leters? Further, I don't consider people who just participated in an AfD to be susbstantial contributors to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Changes made.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do review WP:CCC, an official policy. - Biruitorul Talk 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And please read the policy I mentioned above regarding renominating articles for deletion. This isn't a change in consensus. This topic was honestly discussed five months ago, Niteshift didn't like the result, so he's trying to get a do-over.You voted delete then and you're voting delete now. The fact is that this subject was found to be notable then and it should be found to be notable now. The article is properly sourced. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know if there is a change in consensus or not if you don't ask the question? I've seen articles re-nominated in much less time than 5 months, so I'm not sure why you are spending so much time complaining about this nomination.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't vote in the last one, you might want to re-think your statement about me "just not liking it". Smells a lot like an accusation of bad faith to me. I don't believe the notability is there. I nominated it. Get past it already. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Bituitorol. He voted there and he voted here. You just didn't like the result. That is not an "accusation of bad faith". --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that an administrator would understand that point a little better. You were talking TO him, but you were talking ABOUT me.......making an accusation of bad faith that I "just didn't like it". It's not about liking it. I don't think notability is established. Period. Get over it an stop with your strawman. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I just walk in to some rhetorical knife fight I was not aware of? When I said you didn't like the result of the last debate, that's what I meant. Am I wrong? Did you renominate this article for deletion on the exact same grounds as the last debate, the result of which was a keep, because you liked that result? I have assumed good faith that you didn't like it because you disagreed based on the notability policy. That's not bad faith, that's the truth. It looks like you misread what I said before and you accused me of bad faith. When I tried to clarify that my previous comment wasn't even about you (voting in the last one), you immediately accused me of bad faith for something else and of using strawman arguments. (P.S. Just in case you think I'm a Admin, I am not. I am not sure if you were referring above to me or Bituitorol). I hope we can put this entire issue behind us and move on.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making it sound like I voted in the last one and just didn't like that it was delete. I didn't even participate in the last one. I read the article and decided to nominate it before I ever even knew there was a previous AfD. I only found that out while I was in the nomination process. This isn't just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you would have people believe. This is a matter of my belief that there isn't sufficient notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify in case anyone besides Niteshift36 actually thought otherwise, Niteshift didn't vote in the first debate (Bituitorol did). I must assume (per WP:AGF) that Niteshift's reason for renominating this article did not result from WP:IDONTLIKEIT which refers to not liking the subject matter of the article, but that he nominated the article for deletion because he didn't like the result of the last debate. He disagreed with the consensus found there that notability had been established. I am pretty sure this is what I said before. Sorry if I was unclear.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone is actually wondering about the actual notability of this article, here are a few sources describing the relationship: .--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Of the two references, one hints that educational co-operation between Mongolia and Canada might be notable if there is significant non-trivial coverage of that topic. The other emphasizes the lack of bilateral relations and despite a polite tone apparently neither country could be bothered to pursue anything beyond an honorary consulate and an invisible-to-the-media embassy in Ottowa.  Regardless, since there is no significant non-trivial coverage of relations between Canada and Mongolia, this article should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Just enough sources to demonstrate some notable relations. Canada is the 2nd largest investor in Mongolia, . and 2 more (yes I know primary sources): military cooperation and the two countries are also in the process of negotiating a high level agreement, just my opinion but this is of major benefit to the Mongolian economy. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I may as well restate what I said in the last AfD: "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." Let me also add that, yes, "Canada–Mongolia relations" as such have not been covered in independent sources; that fundamental problem should automatically prevent this article from existing further. - Biruitorul Talk 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cdogsimmons. Alefbe (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. When a medium-sized country such as Canada is the second largest investor in a country on the other side of the world that's pretty notable. And I wish the nominator would get the idea out of her/his head that encyclopedias don't cover the mundane. Just take your favourite print encyclopedia down from the bookshelf and open it at random: I bet you'll see plenty of articles about mundane topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what encyclopedias you have, but mine doesn't have an article devoted solely to the relationship between Canada and Mongolia. Please tell me which print one of yours does, then we can use it as a source. And that logic almost sounds like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't tell you the impact Mongolian relations with my home country have had on my life. Mostly because, there hasn't been any. A small handful of agreements hardly amount to much, save for the kind of aid we give a lot of countries. At least there's a source of some overview over time, but only of one area, not relations as a whole. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No notable relations other than what is common between almost any two countries on this planet, and for that, coverage in the respective "foreign relations of x" articles is absolutely sufficient. --Latebird (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The relations between most two countries on the planet usually do turn out to be notable. The above argument, is essentially JUST ANOTHER, and it fails when the others are notable also.  CCC, yes, but I think consensus has changed a little more towards keeping these. I am strongly opposed to over-rapid repetitive nominations, but a new AfD 5 months later seem perfectly reasonable to me--it's not abusive. As for the actual article, the material  there originally was a little scanty, but considering the trouble and expense of maintaining embassies, countries tend to do it when there is some political or economic reason for it. Similarly with state visits. They;re not done for recreation. The material found by LibStar, above, is fully sufficient for notability . A no. 2 investment partner is a highly notable relation, along with the rest. DGG (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weakest possible keep. For once I think that some of the sources dug up by Cdogsimmons actually do (barely) meet the bar of direct, detailed coverage of the topic, in particular this one. Yilloslime T C  00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as a bilateral relationship article meets three core content policies, it should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is a bilateral relationship here. The state visits, the embassies, and the investing are all notable. No reason to delete a good stub article that passes WP:N. - Epson291 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find the relationship between the countries some what notable and i think it passes WP:N.-- Kyle  1278  03:38, 18 July 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.