Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Lebanon 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Croatia–Lebanon relations

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

Fails WP:NOTE as there are no sources on the topic of the article, "Croatia-Lebanon relations". There aren't even embassies so that rules out even non-independent references on that front. No redirect is needed as it is not a plausible search term. Non-notable. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No credible connection - should go into new single country article. Collect (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Les informative than most of these, nothing to assert notability of relations themselves. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete google news search only shows multilateral relations. only 1 memo of understanding and 1 minor agreement, neither of which seems subject to wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per LibStar - there's no evidence that WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent addition of a 3rd party source detailing the Croation Armed Forces peacekeeping mission to Lebanon in 2007. Relations exist (verified). Notability is satisfied in my opinion. Here's an article from the BBC about Croatia's concerns about the Lebanon conflict and I wasn't looking very hard.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you admit that there are no independent reliable sources providing significant in-depth coverage of the actual subject of the article, Croatia-Lebanon relations? You're also misrepresenting an article discussing an aspect of multilateral relations as representing one aspect of bilateral relations. No one is claiming that absolutely no relations exist, but that they are not notable. Here at Wikipedia the subject of articles must be notable, not only verifiable.  Your opinion that your personal standards are met isn't good enough, it violates consensus and it is disruptive for you to continue to ignore notability guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided an independent reliable source that provides significant coverage. It's called the BBC. Your observation that this article is solely about "bilateral" relations is wrong. This article is called Croatia–Lebanon relations not Croatia–Lebanon bi-lateral relations. What you call my personal standard is me thinking that the BBC is a reliable, significant, 3rd party source and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. My view the subject matter is notable is backed up by the source provided about the Croatian military sending troops to Lebanon in 2007. As far as your repeated allegations that I am being disruptive by "ignoring" the notability policy in saying these things, your tone is accusatory and your allegations are false. I'll remind you of wikipedia's policy against personal attacks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source may demonstrate the notability of a UN peace-keeping mission to Lebanon, but it does not address Croatia-Lebanon relations in any way. This topic of this article is not UN peacekeeping missions or even UN peacekeeping missions to Lebanon, it is Croatia-Lebanon relations. Drawn Some (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the fact that Croatian soldiers were acting under the aegis of the UN should stop them from representing Croatia. The source makes a big deal out of the fact that they were Croatian.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my last comment. You're ignoring the fact that the article does not address Croatia-Lebanon relations. Drawn Some (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a source doesn't use the magic phrase "Croatia-Lebanon relations" doesn't mean that that is not the subject of the source. The cited article, in covering the Croation military's deployment in Lebanon establishes the notability of the military "relationship". Relations does not have to refer solely to diplomatic relations. It can also refer to military interactions (war) or trade.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Their "relationship" doesn't go beyond the pedestrain, which means not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. per lack of independent sources addressing this topic directly and in detail. Yilloslime T C  00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not trying to be offensive, but the fact is, if we were to accept this article and keep it in Wikipedia, we would probably have to keep an entire log of when, where, who and how of all diplomatic establishment between all country, which cannot all be notable enough to sustain an article. This is just one of them.Frankie goh (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no, sophistry aside, there is no coverage of "Croatia–Lebanon relations", no matter how much we may pretend it exists. Fails WP:N for that reason. - Biruitorul Talk 02:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete another mindless combinatorial article (if x is notable and y is notable then the intersect of x and y isn't necessarily notable).Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 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.