Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–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. -- User:Docu 02:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Croatia–Mongolia relations

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

Contested prod. The "sources" found don't really establish the notability of the relationship as such. Even putting aside their dubious provenance (including a self-published portal and non-independent state news agencies), what we have are a "cultural cooperation agreement" (er, ok) and the concurrent meeting of the countries' culture ministers (would a meeting of their first deputy assistant heads of sanitation services also qualify as notable?), a pretty small loan Mongolia made from Croatia (I can understand that loans can become notable issues, say like the Dawes Plan, but let's not open the Pandora's Box of claiming notability for individual financial transactions of any stripe), and finally, three reports on a trip the Croatian President took to Mongolia, which in addition to having about zero significance beyond the week it happened (nothing we'd ever mention in the President's biography, for example), resulted in a pledge to -- you guessed it -- "boost bilateral cooperation in a various fields". All very nice, but nothing more than the normal course of international relations, and not something we should bother recording (or would bother, outside this series of nonsense articles). There are no sources discussing this relationship as such, and when one stops a minute to really consider the underlying issues - no cultural/historic/strategic ties, no significant trade, no article that could ever link to this one, deletion becomes an attractive option. Biruitorul Talk 01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the Wikipedia rule of presidential biography inclusion? It would be a great rule if one existed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not much to say, not much of an article. Johndowning (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The material cited by the nom is just sufficient for an article. The argument is a mix of strawman (sanitation services) and denigration (size of loan). DGG (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a moment. The meeting of culture ministers deserves gentle mockery - it is, again, news, something we'd never consider mentioning outside this series of nonsense articles. As for the loan: millions of dollars are routinely loaned - and? Do we take note? Of course not. It happens every week of every year, and only here, where we strain beyond the bounds of the absurd to "demonstrate" notability, are these things picked up on. - Biruitorul Talk 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete there is little third party coverage, although all I could find was a head of state meeting in 2008, although I believe more than this is required to justify an article. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - How do the sources found not establish notability? Obviously me an Biruitorul have different standards, but things like two heads of state meeting eachother. FYI the title of this article is Croatia-Mongolia relations, and one of the article I said says, "boost bilateral cooperation in a various fields". That goes hand in hand with the title. Not everything has to be like Canada-United States relations to be notable, there is no clause of notability that says just because the relations aren't the strongest the world has ever seen doesn't meen they are not notable. Please see Talk:Croatia–Mongolia relations, for the refs in question - Marcusmax ( speak ) 13:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone wants to "boost bilateral cooperation in a various fields"; that doesn't mean there's any substance to such words. And as for head of state meetings, again, about zero significance beyond the week it happened (nothing we'd ever mention in the President's biography, for example); and of course no article that could ever link to this one, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of significance or importance. Drawn Some (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sufficient sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The sources seem good, there just isn't alot to say on the topic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taelus (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No notability recognisable, and the article doesn't explain what is supposed to make those "relations" non-trivial. Two heads of state (and other officials) meeting is daily routine, and at best a short-lived news item, especially if the visit had mostly recreational character as seems to be the case here. Paying interest on loans is also routine. Do we really need an extra article to cover 150k USD of mutual investment and less than a dozen exchange students over the last 30 years? --Latebird (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - I have began updating the article, my work is not done yet but I have cleaned it up and shown notability. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The article is definetly notable. It just needs a bit of improvement. this may help. Res Mar 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Beyond a claim of inherent notability, the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are "ample reliable and verifiable sources" for many non-notable topics. And which policy or guideline exactly supports your claim of "inherent notability"? --Latebird (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples of topics receiving coverage in the media, yet Wikipedia considers them non-notable? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Has failed to establish notability. One of the 37,000+ potential articles of bilateral relations that doesn't rise to the level of needing an article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are showing regional bias. While it may not be a New York Times headline of a BBC headline, it is important to both Croatia and Mongolia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I have serious doubts that those "relations" are very important for Mongolia. The given sources just show that the Mongolians are hospitable people, but not necessarily that those visits had any deeper impact. --Latebird (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But the article isn't about "big impact" relationships, it is about all relationships found notable enough that the media took notice and recorded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not any media coverage, it's significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." What are you calling original research? There are seven references, more than trivial and less than exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:43, 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. Thanks. A HUGE amount of effort has been taken in this AFD arguing for and against its deletion, when this energy could be used much more effectively to merging these articles. Ikip (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A gathering of disparate sources on events that have no inherent notability, and that we wouldn't mention at all, anywhere, were it not for the "rescue" attempts. Whoever thinks Mesic's visit is worth portraying as a factor in the decision to keep this separate article should seriously ponder if it and all other such state visits are worth mentioning in the Mesic article. Computer says no. Dahn (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it isn't worth noting, why do the media outlets report on them? I think what you are saying it is no interest to you. Some people have no interest in sports, others have no interest in international relations. By having a media source record the information they have declared it notable. Wikipedians don't determine notability, the media does in what it chooses to report.

It's not any media coverage, it's significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." What are you calling original research? There are seven references, more than trivial and less than exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, I have already answered elsewhere. Several times. First of all, by stating that it's my opinion, you add nothing new; yes, anything can be translated into "that's your opinion", even, brace yourself, your opinion. The point here is to present those opinions and expose them to scrutiny.
 * That said, your whole comment about what "some people have no interest in" is either beside the point or poison thrown in the well. For one, I am not against these articles because "they don't interest me", I am against them because they make no sense, because they are about nothing of contextual significance, because no one could possibly expand on such subjects without veering into trivial nonsense, and because they set a slippery slope. All of these being things which you apparently don't care much about, but which go against wikipedia rules. Because, you see, just like it's neither accurate nor especially logical to claim that the argument I make relies on me not "being interested" in some subject, it certainly isn't a valid reason to vote in favor of a subject because you find it interesting. The entire argument you're constructing in relation to that is therefore outside the scope of this discussion.
 * But the main point here is the following: you are appealing to special pleading, theorizing that events which would be considered of no relevancy in any other case establish something relevant here and here especially. Furthermore, you are telling us that a random collection of those trivial facts will result in something notable, but you also tell us that notable is subject to interpretation - the "it's interpretable" argument, let's note, you only use in your favor. And, finally, the media coverage, which is minimal by any account, does source a phenomenon, but random events - much more is needed for sourcing just about any other article, but you tell us that it will do here. Because... Dahn (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A reliable source, is a reliable source, is a reliable source. Your attempts to belittle the sources used in the article by all appearances gives the impression you have a regional bias. The sources are reliable enough for Google News and are not blacklisted by Wikipedia, they should be reliable for you. Notability is when a reliable source takes notice of an event. How else can I describe your disparaging remarks? I have never said "[I] find it interesting", but I have said that notability is defined as the media taking notice. So when a reliable source says it is interesting enough to write about, then it is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete an article on a relationship of so little interest to the two countries involved they don't care to exchange ambassadors. There are no non-trivial treatments of this relationship in reliable sources to be found.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I read the article, and it clearly indicates there is a notable relationship between the two countries. They are meeting with each other, about culture, working at becoming more like each other.  What more for an article about relations between two nations can you want?   D r e a m Focus  15:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More than a random collection of trivial facts, maybe? - Biruitorul Talk 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Random is an odd choice of words, since every fact involves Croatia and Mongolia. You must not have a mathematical background if you consider that random. Random facts would be better represented by the DYK column such as today's random facts: Microsoft attempted to tap into the Chinese computing market in 1999 with a prototype computer known as Microsoft Venus and Polish merchant Jan Dekert was a vocal advocate for the enfranchisement of burghers during the Great Sejm in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Much more random. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep due to considerable improvements since nomination. Numerous books devote paragraphs to the role of Croatia in defending against the Mongol invasion of the 1240s.  Thus, there is a clear historical moment of importance between these two countries that is absolutely of interest to military historians in particular.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! You've given me my laugh of the day, AN. And I particularly like your informative edit summary for your !vote above. Deor (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A war in which actual human beings died, possibly even ancestors of our contributors and readers is nothing to laugh about. And as opposed to what, this informative edit summary?  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No third-party coverage of the topic stated in the article title. Also, I'm curious just how far relations progressed after the 13th century. My guess is, they didn't. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the reference section of the article, you will see third-party coverage of the topic in the article title and as the article demonstrates after the Mongol invasion, relations renewed again in the late twentieth century. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the considerable improvements since the nomination, the meeting of the worthy goals of WP:CSB, the guideline of WP:POTENTIAL, and the opportunities presented in Google Scholar, Google News and Google Books (not to mention what might be discovered at a public library), that might work toward further expansion and sourcing. Allowing continued improvement serves to better the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:57, 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.