Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Croatia–Mongolia relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a pointless article about an uninteresting relationship between two countries that are many thousands of kilometers apart and which aren't interested in each other enough to maintain mutual embassies. It has undergone PROD and AFD once before, and there has been no real change in content since the last time it was kept, in fact, it only got smaller. This topic has little to no potential and it simply doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a few more intro comments: it doesn't really matter much now, but the original author of the article is a now-blocked sockpuppet account that seems to have created a flurry of similarly strange articles related to countries and peoples. Several other users worked on this article since, yet IMHO it remains as pointless as it was once it was first written. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Hard to believe that it was only a year ago that we had the big debate over each of the Groubani articles, of which this was one, and the "call it off, call it off!" intervention by the task force for better pancakes, but even after the addition of some news about a stopover by a leader during a tour, and paying off of a mortgage (OK, it was a loan for $148,496 and 50 cents), I don't see anything that couldn't be thrown in to the foreign relations articles. There had been an initial push to rescue the Groubani articles, until people realized just how damn many (hundreds) that sock had cranked out.  Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No content here that can't more appropriately be covered in the existing articles on Croatia and Mongolia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no real ongoing relations here. a few limited visits, and a one off loan hardly relates in notable bilateral relations. yes the 2 presidents met in 2008 but it really needs to be a lot more than this to be a notable article. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is about a bilateral relationship. There are reliable sources presented. But those sources analyse individual events, not the relationship as a whole. That is the critical distinction. Cobbling together coverage of individual events to form an article about a bilateral relationship amounts to synthesis (in its ordinary meaning more than its WP:NOR meaning). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources now present do actually talk about the overall relationshiop, even if the title would imply they are just about one event, e.g.


 * Keep Loans, embassies, and official visits are what make up international relations. Relationships ads a whole are made up of particulars.  DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * did you even read this article? they don't even have embassies. the World Bank and IMF loan even more money to Mongolia than Croatia ever has, perhaps we should create World Bank-Mongolia relations. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The US does not have an embassy in either Iran or Cuba or Bhutan or Taiwan or North Korea. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

US does not have embassies in Iran, Cuba and North Korea because they have embargoes and not having diplomatic relations with those countries for a long time. US does not have an embassy in Taiwan after China insisted they didn't. Croatia and Mongolia have diplomatic relations and no embargoes. your argument is very weak. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose it. I do not see that I said that they have an embassy directly yet.  DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * why did you mention embassies then? LibStar (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mkativerata said it better than I could. Quantpole (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mkativerata Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2010 (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) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mkativerata. If reliable sources aren't covering the relationship itself then neither should we. Yilloslime T C  15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC) More: I think this discussion highlights a fundamental difference between how editors interpret WP:N and, to a lesser extent, WP:OR. I read WP:N as requiring the existence of sources that address the topic itself. Sources on individual aspects of the topic are not sufficient, and assembling them into a treatment of the topic is WP:SYN. For example, let's say a reliable source mentions that John Doe coaches a little league team called the Cougars. Let's say a different news paper article, this one on Local Pizzeria, mentions that it sponsors the Cougars. Let's further suppose that the city Parks & Recs website has the team's wins and losses tabulated. And maybe a newspaper profile of the middle valedictorian mentions that he plays on the Cougars. Does all this add to the Cougars meeting WP:N. I'd argue no, because of none the sources address the Cougars directly or in detail, and I'd further argue that assembling into an article would require WP:OR, since there are no reliable secondary sources to guide article drafting. And I think this is pretty much what's going on with this article. Yilloslime T C  23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nominator and Mandsford. Joal Beal (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete When an encylopedia article talks about repaying a loan that is about 5 times the size of my outstanding student loan debt, the best thing is to just delete it. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Shame, shame, shame to "make it shrink" since it was last nominated.  One can always pick the cherries out of a pie and then claim it is not a cherry pie.  That does not mean the cherries cannot be properly returned to the pie... and make it even better than it was before.  That the article was properly "kept" last time, is not a reason to whittle it to nothing and return it to AFD until it is finally deleted.  I opined a keep at the last AFD due to considerable improvements that has been made that addressed concerns at that time.  It should be kept, revereted to an earlier and properly encyclopedic version, and further improved to meet its WP:POTENTIAL through the opportunites presented in Google Scholar, Google News and Google Books, that could assist in further expansion and sourcing.... that is... if improvements will be allowed by those who would rather it not be here at all.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * shame shame shame, all your google scholar, books searches simply show multilateral relations where Mongolia and Croatia are mentioned with several other countries. you have not proven any significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. In fact this search you provided in Google News yields nothing, which makes me wonder if you even checked these searches beforely blindly posting here. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a reason to consider corecting the focus through regular editing, but not one for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * please provide evidence of specific coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - yet another vandalized article that has been nominated for deletion. This was kept last time in decent shape.  Please save the best version of fix it before nominating again. Don't let the vandals win this one. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * please provide sources otherwise it's a WP:JUSTAVOTE, if you provide 10 non trivial sources, I will happily change my vote. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
 * Referring to the reasoned edits of others as vandalism is a failure to WP:AGF. You, me, Libstar, RAN--we may not always agree with each other, but I think it's evident that we all have the 'pedia's best interests in mind with our edits. Calling this a "vandalized article" isn't helpful. Yilloslime T C  00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not vandalism. But I note that many of those voting delete above are those same editors who wished it gone last time 'round, and some were/are themselves involved in "shrinking" the article to make it into what they claimed. Had it not been "shrunk" it would/should have had the same notability as established last time, thus making this a push to overturn that earlier consensus.  And I am hearing the same reasons in argument as used before, but now used against a lessor article than what survived the last AFD.  Sure, its not JUSTAVOTE, but it makes shrinking an article to support opinion of non-notability into a self-fulfilling prophecy.  As it is... we do have the time to expand the article and further source it while this repeat of the last AFD is ongoing, and I appreciate that LibStar granted that improvemnets might change his mind. -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw everything you mention post res, with fresh eyes, and yet I am convinced that all mentioned revisions of the article should be deleted because there is no real potential. If you actually read the nomination at the top you will see that I explicitly acknowledged the existence of an old version with more content, and by doing that and doing nothing about it I also implicitly acknowledged the removal of that content. The tangential story from several centuries ago that has no practical relevance to the relationship of countries today known as Croatia and Mongolia was rightly removed because it contributes nothing to the core of the article.
 * Hmm. All this circular contemplation is only adding to the sheer pointlessness of this article :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It has coverage of various events between the nations, and we already had this discussion last year. And it is in bad taste that those who want to delete an article, who don't get their way, then go and delete parts of it after the AFD ends in keep.  If you aren't interested in the content, then leave it alone.  Surely you have something better to do than destroy other people's work.   D r e a m Focus  10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. this argument contains no description of how the article meets WP:N. again another keep vote with zero evidence of significant thrid party coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I said in my opening sentence It has coverage of various events between the nations. There is significant coverage of anything involving these two countries already found in English sources, and if someone spoke the languages of the nations involved, they'd surely find more.  Do you doubt that nations would have in their newspapers reports of their activities between countries?   D r e a m Focus  20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

yes I highly doubt it that there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. this has been listed in Croatian related AfDs since May 4 which would have been picked up by Croatian speakers. it is a very weak argument to say additional sources exist and not providing any evidence of it. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is highly doubtful that the relationship is viewed as important in either nation. The evidence is the lack of embassies and the total lack of secondary sources. Do you believe that every nation views its relationship with every other nation as important? Abductive  (reasoning) 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many nations don't have embassies, since they can't afford it, or simply have no reason to have someone representing their interest there all the time. With modern communications and transportation being what it is, they could contact them whenever possible without the need for such things.  Lack of an embassy does not indicate anything.   D r e a m Focus  22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have secondary sources to back up these claims? Abductive  (reasoning) 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not the dollar amount of a loan that determines notability, it is that reliable media took note of the loan and reported it. The article is sourced and has enough information for a stand alone article. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that relations have to be superlative to have an article. Superlative relations have multiple articles such as the US and Russia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is indeed no rule about superlatives, but there is an accepted standard of Notability wher we require significant coverage. Reliable media also take note of everyone who gets born or gets hit by a bus in Croatia, but that still doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in a standalone English Wikipedia article. I don't see how a single dignitary visit (three days in passing over to China) is something that can be significantly covered, and a lack of mutual embassies despite two years having passed from that visit supports the notion that it wasn't a significant visit per se, so its coverage can't really be any more significant - at least not in this case. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone covered with a biography in reliable media is notable by Wikipedia standards, but, we exclude people that are in the news only once, for a single event. That is the One Event clause of notability. What does that have to do with anything we are discussing here? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you are fixating on the number, three days, rather than that it was reported in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you ignore the rest of what I said? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2010 (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 a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It meets that standard set out by Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disregarding for the moment my opinion on the spirit of that guideline; I still don't really see how it even meets the letter of guideline - none of the sources are really non-trivial coverage, because there is simply no real depth to the issues at hand that would warrant it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 10 facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from a 1 source. Wikipedia doesn't demand a single source for all the facts in an article, it actually discourages a single source article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. A comparison with the other Foo-Mongolia relations articles reveals the utter poverty of the keep arguments in this AfD. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you are arguing the subjective importance. I am sure if we rank them all this would fall in the bottom third, but it still meets the Wikipedia requirements. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it falls at the bottom. The simple fact is that the topic of Croatia–Mongolia relations does not have what are called "secondary sources", which according to consensus are supposed to analyze the topic. Since no such source exists in any language, the topic must be deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I don't see any primary sources in the article, can you point one out to me? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that topics without secondary sources are to be deleted. Primary sources are irrelevant. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Your opinion is interesting, but I am quoting Wikipedia policy directly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That out of context bit of text will not save this article from deletion. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please point out a forbidden primary source used in the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment none of the keep arguments have provided any evidence of substantial third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The evidence is in the article already, no reason for us to repeat it. Every fact in the article is referenced to a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me sum up the deletion arguments:
 * The article is Original Research. No, it is not. Wikipedia defines OR as: "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources." For instance if I were to say that the meeting between dignitaries was "awesome" or was "embarrassing" or was "scary", that would be OR, because it is not in the original, it is me adding my personal interpretation. I don't see that anywhere in the article.
 * The article has no Significant Coverage in the references. Wikipedia defines SC as: "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Every fact is referenced and Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from one source or 10 facts come from ten sources. Mathematically they are identical. Wikipedia discourages single source articles and we have a tag for that:


 * The article uses only Primary Sources. No primary sources are used at all. A primary document would be a transcript of the meeting, or a copy of a signed agreement, or a photograph of two leaders shaking hands. All the sources are news agencies and one is a fact taken from the embassy website.
 * This isn't an important relationship. There are no embassies, there was a loan of only a small amount of money. The leaders only met once. The meeting only lasted 3 days. Wikipedia isn't only about superlatives. That is the the Guinness book of World Records. That will show you the richest country, the biggest, the first, the last, the most populous. Wikipedia only cares if it is notable. Notability is when the media takes notice and writes about something. Every fact is sourced in the article to reliable media.


 * In summary the article meets every Wikipedia requirement, and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. 7 more footnotes were added from three new sources, and the article was put in chronological order. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * consensus can change and the last closing admin has now been banned from closing bilateral AfDs due to poor judgements in closing. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting Mr. Norton and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. That's not what happened. A bunch of puff unrelated to the subject and generally from poor sources was restored to the article. So what? That the arse canvassing tag brought in a couple of keep for the sake of the kittens votes is risible, but not particularly surprising or reflective of the content of the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Puff" and "poor sources" are subjective. What source is unreliable to you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still a not single independent secondary source in the article that address the topic of these countries' relations directly and in detail. Sure, all the individual facts in the article are cited to reliable (though not necessarily independent) sources, but the article is just an assemblage of these factoids. WP:N requires the existence of sources that address the topic itself, and there aren't any. Yilloslime T C  20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from one source or 10 facts come from 10 sources. Mathematically they are identical, Wikipedia discourages single source articles. Can you quote the rule that says that the information needs to come from a single in-depth source? I have never seen the rule. Are you suggesting that the word "relations" needs to appear in the source material to be considered a source on the topic itself? It would be great if all the information came from one source, it would make writing it much easier. Wikipedia makes no such requirement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. Yilloslime T C  00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr Norton, additional non trivial sources (not barrel scraping) would further your case for notability. please provide 7 more new non trivial sources of actual bilateral relations, and I'll happily change my vote. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Barrel scraping" is again a subjective term and is derogatory to the BBC and the English versions of the Croation and Mongolian and Chinese news services. Please quote the Wikipedia rule that discusses barrel scraping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You again are putting forth the argument that the cited work must use the term "bilateral relation" in the text or title to be used in the article or to be considered "in depth". Wikipedia has no such requirement. Any synonym for the relationship can be used by the cited article: war, state-visit, commerce, loans, agreements, exchanges. All the things that are listed on the United States Department of State website for US relations with other countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how much effort you spend arguing semantics and not actually looking for actual sources that would strengthen your case. is it that there does not exist significant in depth coverage of these bilateral relations? LibStar (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One more time, Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from 1 source, or 10 facts come from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical. If you know of some rule that says otherwise please quote it here for me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment an editor here has introduced a novel interpretation of the notability criteria: 10 non-trivial sources. I think this was invented because there already were non trivial sources, and the usual (and appropriate if true) argument that there were none had been exploded.  I think the ed. means this absurd condition quite literally: after three more were added, he asked for another 7. Then he asked that they contain the exact wording of the title. And all this was after major parts of the content were removed before the AfD.   Apparently he really does  believe that no article on bilateral relations except between major countries can possibly be notable, and that no possible evidence can prove otherwise.   DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course the real standard is more than one non-trivial source. Fortunately, there are zero non-trivial sources on the topic of Croatian/Mongolian relations, so the article will be deleted in due time. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you quote directly from the Wikipedia rule on "trivial sources" right here please? I have quoted directly all the refutations, please do me the same favor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, WP:Notability mentions "trivial" twice plus once in a footnote. The term "non-trivial source" has been used in 979 AfDs, the term "trivial mention" has been used in 2,616 AfDs, and the term "significant coverage" has been used in 11,959 AfDs. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Telling me a word is used is in a guideline is not defining it for me. It is just telling me the word appears. You can't define a word by just typing the word. Tell me the rule that distinguishes trivia from something substantive, tell me the number of words a reference must have to go from trivial to substantive, what is the magic number? If there is a magic number then it will no longer be subjective, we can distinguish trivia. To me all sports statistics are trivia, and to others it is their raison d'être. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "rule" is rather dispersed but has consensus, subject of course to different interpretations of what "significant" means. I can say little else. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a rule if you can't quote it, it is just a vague concept you and a few others have. Until a firm number is put forth, I will stand by the concept: 10 facts from 1 source, or 10 facts from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical in their depth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, this is not a concept held by a few; in fact, your position is in the minority. An exact quote from WP:N is third parties "... have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it...". Most of the participants in this AfD are of the opinion that there are no non-trivial sources that focus on the topic. Put another way, if a topic has no sources at all it fails WP:V, but if sources exist it can still fail WP:N. All non-SNOW AfDs revolve around the interpretation of the strength of the sources. If it was clear-cut, then there would never be any AfDs. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep quality articles, sources present easilly sufficient to establish notability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While this bilateral relations AfD has been jumped on by the "usual suspects" (myself, Mansford, Libstar, DGG, Bali ultimate, Abductive, MQS, Bearian, Dream Focus, RAN 1958, Alansohn, & FeydHuxtable), it's interesting to note that the "new faces" here (Joy, DustFormsWords, Quantpole, Joal Beal and to a lesser extent Nick-D, & Mkativerata) have all argued for deletion. I think that says something. Yilloslime T C  18:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are multiple independent sources which demonstrate a seemingly improbable international relationship.--TM 00:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They demonstrate something exists (even if just barely), but my primary argument for deletion wasn't verifiability, it's notability. (The deletion policy says that failure to meet the notability guideline can be a valid reason for deletion.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships. Clearly, the two states have a relationship and multiple independent sources demonstrate this relationship. To me, this relationship is clearly both notable and verifiable.--TM 11:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have secondary sources that claim that "State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships"? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Do you not understand what Bilateralism is? Are you disputing that State Visits by high ranking officials and intergovernmental loans are not part of the basis for bilateral relations?--TM 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What I see is a claim with no sources. You say loans and state visits. Do secondary sources say that those two things are the totality of "bilateral relations"? Can you proffer any sources? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:43, 11 May 2010 (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.