Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (3rd 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. This is leaning, numerically, towards a keep. By strength of argument, slightly towards delete. Either way, calling this one way or the other would be nothing but a supervote after 14 days. And I know how annoying a no consensus close is on a third AFD, but that's exactly what we have. Courcelles 16:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Per User talk:Shimeru, I'm continuing this process here. There I wrote that I would like the former closing admin to review Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination) again, in light of three things: This position was supported as by the previous closing admin as a good reason to do this. Also, my attempt to merge the article a few months ago was reverted repetitively, so there's no other recourse than to relist it for deletion to try to get a consensus once again. In any case, the basic reasons for deletion have already been explained at length at the 2nd nomination, and at the article talk page, please don't make me repeat it all over again :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They closed it as no consensus without it having been relisted. It could have been given some more time instead.
 * The keep !votes were mostly contested based on WP:V and WP:NOR and AFAICT this wasn't answered. Therefore, they might be invalid.
 * It's been another year and the article is still in the same state, proving my point on it being hopeless.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the numerous sources covering this relationship directly and in detail. The nominator really needs to explain what has changed since the last (two) AfDs for this article. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► directorate ─╢ 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh, so we have to do this whole dance again. There exist a handful of sources that directly cover details of what we can call the "relations" between the two countries, yes. But that there is nevertheless not a single secondary source that addresses the actual topic of the article as a whole directly and in detail. The standalone article about this topic is an egregious violation of WP:SYNTH, where multiple events, a bunch of them from a completely irrelevant and discontiguous period in the Dark Ages (!), are conflated into a single story, one that does not exist as an actual notable story in real life. Please, do try to read the previous AfD discussion, it's all explained there already, contested, explained again, contested again, explained again, repetitio ad nauseam. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete these bilateral articles are about the actual notable relations between nation states, not ancient history of vastly different geographic boundaries. The modern relations are factoids, a few students studied there, a bit of aid, a one off visit. There is no evidence that these 2 nations have notable trade, regular high level visits, significant migration, military cooperation. Will reconsider when these 2 sign a major trade agreement and both countries decide to open embassies. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep again Joy, there has been 0 change in the article itself in months and you nominate it again? Don't waste all of our time with this stuff. Just because you don't like it, does not mean it should not exist.--TM 11:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that there's been 0 change is exactly why I'm nominating it again - it's another succinct demonstration how the article cannot be improved simply with further editing. There is apparently nothing to add to the article, so given that we know we can't make it compliant with policy, we should drop it. (In fact nowadays I actually like the article personally, it's like a bizarre installation of some sort, an art form.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't find any pressing need for deletion, the article contains valid information that is well sourced, and potentially of interest (I was interested). I know that the merits of deletion should not be argued by comparison with other articles, nevertheless I feel I should point out that if other bilateral relation articles were written like this one that would be quite an improvement. Furthermore, I'm not impressed by the recurrent drive to get this article deleted. However, we do need to draw a line somwhere for the notability of bilateral relations articles, and the WikiProject International relations has drawn up some guidelines here, and this article does not come close to meeting them. Maethordaer (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - There really isn't anything which this article could be expanded with. Mongolia and Croatia are two countries which barely had contact throughout history. I think previous discussions were affected by the circumstances of the article's creation (the whole Groubani affair) and the community's response (article rescuers who tried hard to salvage bilateral articles and ended up arguing for this one to prove a point). But nowadays we have WP:INTR's guidelines so we can skip the debates and check the article against the six criteria. And it fails on all counts.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 23:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article clearly passes #1 of that project guideline. Your claim is thus refuted.  Warden (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's the problem with the blatant WP:SYNTH in the article - medieval Croats and Mongols of 1242 are not one and the same with the modern-day states of Croatia and Mongolia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. At least now the nominator's first point won't be an issue in this AFD :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination seems incoherent, failing to provide any clear reason to delete and seeming mostly obsessed by previous failures to convince. The countries have had significant historical relations and this is well supported by sources here and elsewhere.  Warden (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK... so what is the reason to keep, then? Please explain where do you see these significant historical relations, preferably naming one example source that you see supporting them? Seriously, I fail to see a single source here or elsewhere to support your assertions. The article lists eleven Mongolian persons (in a population of over 2 million that's below 0.00055%) who did something of no general notability (schooling) in Croatia, a loan in the amount of 0,0074% of the Croatian yearly state budget (roughly 20 billion USD and a 148K USD loan) making it not only non-notable but borderline trivial, and two political events that are also of no general notability (at least they wouldn't warrant mention in any other Wikipedia article AFAICT). Where is the significance then? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) "The countries have had significant historical relations and this is well supported by sources." Um what? Apart from the brief invasion by Mongols in the 13th century (which definitely occurred but which had absolutely no impact on Croatia or its culture and/or future) the two countries had no contact to speak of for the next six centuries until the late 1990s. And then, a renaissance occurred, evidenced by a total of eleven (11) people from Mongolia who studied in Croatia and a loan which amounted to the 150,000 dollars. Yes, there had been a few routine visits by heads of state and the usual babble about "improving relations" was carried by news agencies, but did anything materialize from it? The closest thing to something resembling diplomatic relations consists of a honorary consul of Mongolia in Zagreb, a guy called Zlatko Mateša who earned that title by "travelling extensively" around Mongolia (Jutarnji.hr). On the other hand Croatia established a honorary consulate in Mongolia only some six months ago in March 2011 and granted the title to one Bat-Erdene Purevdagva . The two countries have never been engaged in a war, have no significant trade balance, have never been in any sort of an alliance, do not share a border, and have never been engaged in a diplomatic conflict. In the first 11 months of 2010 Croatia's import from Mongolia was worth a whopping 3,000 euros, up from 2,000 euros in the same period in 2009, while Croatian export to Mongolia was exactly zero in 2010, down from 15,000 euros in 2009. Croatia's entire yearly import from Mongolia is equivalent to what four guys in Delaware spend on cigarettes. This is absurd.  Timbouctou  ( talk ) 23:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTBIGENOUGH which explains that this is not a helpful argument. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The very link you posted and which you yourself obviously failed to read states that "Articles should be judged on their potential, not just current state." What's the potential here?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep While the subject matter is obviously not of Earth-shattering importance, (and may even raise a few eye-brows), international relations between sovereign States are notable. The article appears quite comprehensive and well-referenced. I'm not sure why it has even beem nominated (again?)  Deterence  Talk 14:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relations between sovereign states are certainly not inherently notable. Have you even read WikiProject International relations' guidelines on bilateral relations, specifically points 1 through 6 which address notability for the bilateral relational articles?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 15:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a common pitfall: the article definitely appears quite comprehensive and well-referenced. But once you actually read it all and put it in context - does this constitute a coherent description of notable international relations? I contend that the answer is no, because we have equated modern-day states to Dark-Age tribal incursions and over-elaborated an assortment of fairly trivial interactions. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I agree with user Deterence, the article is comprehensive and well-referenced but with no importance whatsoever. But as user TreasuryTag noted, there are numerous sources covering this relationship directly and in detail, and some of them can be used in other articles (more important ones). --Kebeta (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From this and your recent article edit, it seems you support the idea that Mongol invasion of Europe is relevant to the relations of Croatia and Mongolia. Can you explain why? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my recent article edit has nothing to do with the idea that Mongol invasion of Europe is relevant to the relations of Croatia and Mongolia. As I stated above, I think that this article doesn't have any/much real importance, but it's comprehensive. Although some biographers suggest that a Venetian explorer Marco Polo was born in the town of Korčula (Curzola), on the island of Korčula in today's Croatia. That is another 'very week' Croatia–Mongolia relation since Polo went to the Mongol court in China. Anyway, as I said above, it's a Weak Keep. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, then I'm confused, though at the same time, I feel increasingly that we're running around in circles. If a piece of content is irrelevant, it shouldn't be in an article. If an article is comprehensive about something with no importance whatsoever, it's still an article about something with no importance whatsoever, so it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Otherwise the argument is it exists, we collected a lot of data on it, so it should be kept - those are textbook arguments to avoid in deletion discussions :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a classic case of WP:MASK. Yes, HINA, Xinhua and Montsame News Agency are probably reliable and they do deal with the subject directly - but the fact they wrote about it alone does not lend any indication of notability as these agencies churn out items like these every day. Croatian World Network is (unlike what Wikipedia says) unrelated to EURO-World Network and is a website ran by one guy based in USA called Nenad Bach (the item cited in the article was most likely just taken from HINA) and the Business Mongolia ref is an article credited to www.croatianvillas.com. And the first three refs are both just passing mentions in books about Croatian history taken from Google Books snippets and used here as if 13th-century Mongols and Croatia have something to do with the modern countries of Croatia and Mongolia (nevermind the fact that there's not a single word of explanation as to why there's a chronological hole six centuries long).  Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 15:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument for deletion is that there has to be a single book that covers the entire topic; this is not the correct, and is in fact not the case for a very high percentage of our articles. We write our articles based on information from multiple sources. The individual events in a persons life may not be individually notable -- but the career may be, and this too is the case for most of our articles.  Even when the individual events, like some of those here may be weekly notable, the overall notability of the subject may be much stronger.  All news sources  produce many articles every day but this does not mean we do not rely on their professional judgment about what to write the articles about.  That we do, is the basis of the GNG criterion.  Historical relationships are notable, and what happened 600 years ago does not lose its encyclopedic importance--though we probably could justify a separate article about Croatia-Mongolia Relations in the 13th century. anyone who argues that this had no significant effects from the invasion should do a little more reading on the overall subject. I don't quite think the current inhabitants of the country invaded have altogether forgotten.   DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in fact a current inhabitant of the country invaded, so I don't really appreciate the condescending tone of the final sentence... We have not forgotten, it is taught in school history classes like any other historical event of similar importance; it certainly had some repercussions at the time - see e.g. the Golden Bull of 1242. Yet, none of it has anything to do with the bilateral relations of the two countries today, because the invasion did not e.g. usher any sort of contact between the two places, good or bad. The horde came and went and that was it. The policy of WP:SYNTH clearly states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Instead, the contacts between the countries stem from the mid-20th century, when SFR Yugoslavia (and by extension SR Croatia) was part of the Non-Aligned Movement with Mongolia. To answer the other point - HINA, and probably also Montsame (can't verify that immediately because our article about them is a stub and their web site is useless), aren't actually proper sources to demonstrate notability in this case because they're state-sponsored news agencies. They do not write these stories out of pure journalistic or even commercial interest - it's literally their paid job to report on state-sponsored activities. Hence we simply cannot "rely on their professional judgment about what to write the articles about". You invoked WP:GNG - see all those guidelines about how sources need to be independent from the subject. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I didn't read any sense of condescension in the final sentence (or any other part) of DGG's comment.  Deterence  Talk 11:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm also a current inhabitant. The 1241-42 invasion is treated as a minor episode in Croatia's history and is given only a passing mention in local history books. They came and went and any influence the invasion might have had was indirect (the subsequent building of castles and the like). Besides, those invaders are always referred to as Tatars. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 14:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While there is an obvious connection between the Mongols and the Tatars, (the former having conquered the latter), I'm not sure that it is accurate to ascribe the identity of the 13th century invaders of Croatia as "Tatars". Surely, it was a Mongol invasion?  Deterence  Talk 15:07, 6 September 2011 (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.