Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Philippines 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉  (HAPPY 2022) 15:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Croatia–Philippines relations
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Since this article was last kept in May '13, there have been no substantial changes, which reiterates my earlier point about there being no actual relations worth talking about, or a potential for any. The countries still have no embassies in one another, merely consulates (and the latter fact is also undocumented in the article, amazingly enough). I have googled in Croatian for the concept of these bilateral relations again, and found literally nothing (even if consulates now exist). This is still a rather simple WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT violation that isn't going to get fixed. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete no embassies, state visits. The agreements are minor in nature. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous discussion. I've added a few updates from 2018-2019, including a defence MOU, a third sub-ministerial meeting, and a joint issue of commemorative stamps issued by both countries in explicit recognition of their 25 years of bilateral relations. This is the kind of continued coverage volume to be expected for what is a small, but real, bilateral relationship. --99of9 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Goodness gracious, your edits betray a complete lack of understanding of the concepts of WP:SYNTH. Combining these little scraps of data to compose a story that misrepresents reality is practically the definition of it, and the policy advice against this is now actively being ignored. Also, some of these items are so miniscule, it's actually amusing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sure you can find another website hosting service to post this at, there could be some sort of a bilateral relations fandom.com site, no? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That comment is unnecessarily personal. We have already been over this ground. Both User:DGG and User:Carrite explained to you last time why this does not violate WP:NOR. You are welcome to your opinion, but I don't think it coincides with policy. For the sake of progress here, I have invited third party review of my edits at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research. --99of9 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't intend it to be personal, it's just that you specifically made an explicit effort to add to the pile... the "explanations" from last time were wrong and still are. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep IMO the topic is immensely encyclopedic, a place readers to learn about what relations do and don't exist.  Article does lack listed-and-used GNG type sources and the resultant overview material that may arise from them but IMO they almost certainly exist. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this statement not an example of WP:ITEXISTS + WP:BELONG? Can you back up your opinion that these sources exist with anything other than assertion (WP:SOURCESEXIST)? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't see a lot of value in these, but I see even less value in deleting this and similar articles. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this statement not an example of WP:VALUABLE? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. there 's sufficient material, and this is the best place to put it. Placing sourced facts in an article, from which a reader can decide for themselves the nature of the relationship, is the very opposite of OR.  DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm badgering the discussion here by pointing out Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I'm sorry, this is just so frustrating. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per Joy. This is textbook synthesis. No sources have been produced that actually discuss these countries relationship directly or in any sort of detail. Yilloslime (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the GNG: the relationship is covered in-depth from several angles in different journalistic sources, such as Manila Standard, Philippine Daily Inquirer (x2), and The Diplomat. Many government-to-government contacts have also happened since 2013 and are publicized in government-affiliated websites. Embassies and state visits do not determine notability - the nature and coverage of the relationship does. Why the nominator believes that this article violates WP:SYNTH or WP:NOTNEWS is impossible to address without seeing proper examples. I don't think it violates either. Pilaz (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The policy against improper synthesis is part of the original research policy, not the notability guideline, so your argument is off-base. Please acquaint yourself with the relevant policies before making assertions in that regard. Just because something is mentioned in random newspapers that happen to have some stature that does not mean it's appropriate for the encyclopedia. I'm especially curious where you find the depth in these articles with regard to Croatia-Phillippines relations, when they are so horribly, horribly bad. For example, there's a single reference to a Manila Standard article from 1992 that talks about FR Yugoslavia but also happens to have a single sentence that lists Croatia as one of the countries given international recognition by the Phillippines. That is not in-depth coverage of bilateral relations. There's a Philippine Daily Inquirer article reference that has had to be fished out of the Wayback Machine, which reports about an actually relevant diplomatic event in the Vienna (sic) embassy and cites ministerial level statements, but for in-depth context it states the following: "The Philippines and Croatia established diplomatic relations in 1993. There are 51 Filipinos in Croatia as of the latest count. According to the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, four Filipinos have business permits in Croatia. The ships that dock in the ports of Rijeka, Zadar, Dubrovnik and Split are also mostly manned by Filipino seafarers." This stuff about fifty people is actually sad (at the same time, the latter statement is actually rather extraordinary and would itself need way better sourcing if we were to relay it). The other article from that paper reports on a "subministerial meeting" and the verbs used are "is looking at", "areas of cooperation discussed", "discussed the possibility", "identifying the channels of communication and discussing how to intensify and deepen our mutual cooperation. We saw that there is great possibility to cooperate" etc etc. This is classic newspaper fodder that is not appropriate to form the backbone of an encyclopedia article by any stretch of imagination. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My GNG argument wasn't a response to your WP:SYNTH or WP:NOTNEWS concerns. I'm glad I brought it up, though, as it was in response to every sentence but the last one of your nomination - and the verbose paragraph above confirms that you don't believe this relationship should pass the GNG, and yet it somehow does. I think your SYNTH concerns are misplaced - you're using SYNTH to argue that the article is a living Frankenstein, when in reality SYNTH just says "if Source A says A and source B says B, don't say that A+B = C." No C is argued anywhere in the article, and the article is extremely factual and even too dry for my taste. I also find this article of encyclopedic value, so it's hard for me to understand why you're bringing up WP:NOTNEWS - nothing here is breaking news, nor routine. NOTNEWS is our firewall against all the paparazzi-fueled articles about every celebrity's favorite restaurant, and the he-did-this or she-said-that articles. Government-to-government relations fall on the opposite side of the spectrum, as they appear in the limelight only once every few years. I have added a few more sources to the defense section of the article, fyi. Pilaz (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * C is "there are bilateral relations between Croatia and Phillippines that have a modicum of coverage in WP:SCHOLARSHIP that justifies the existence of this article" and it is apparently wrong. I'm happy that you notice how there's a purpose to preventing everything from the newspapers to end up in the encyclopedia, but am confused how you fail to see that self-serving government-generated news articles fill the exact same role like any other promotion by non-government entities. The fact that it happens so rarely is an argument *for* them being insignificant, not against that. The fact that all of these WP:PRIMARY sources never got collated into a WP:SECONDARY source, not even a newspaper column (because let's pretend that academic coverage may be too high a bar), makes it quite clear that it's not actually a concept worth explaining in the encyclopedia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * C is in my view an incorrect reading of SYNTH, so I'm going to consider our two opinions on the matter irresolvable. Perhaps others can chime in on this. As for your criticism of news coverage, I really don't see that coverage as promotional, at all, especially given that it comes from established sources. We also aren't required to have WP:SCHOLARSHIP for an article to stand on its own, if other sources cover the topic in a GNG-compliant manner, and the news sources here do. Many Filipino institutions have not been scrutinized by academics, including the Philippine National Police; if we solely had to rely on scholarship, I suspect we wouldn't have an article for it. And by the way, news sources are secondary, not primary. I'm going to tab out of this convo, but others are welcome to join the discussion we've been having: I think we made a lot of progress by examining the root of our arguments. Pilaz (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you need to actually read some of these policies, such as WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:NEWSORG, and pay particular attention to the part about churnalism. We're not having a debate about subtle details of academic sourcing, there just is none here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments, especially the ones in the previous discussion. SBKSPP (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the second time a notability guideline is invoked, but the argument for deletion is about the original research policy and the what-it-is-not policy. Can y'all please read the relevant documents? For example the parts what presumed means and what significant coverage means? Also, what parts of the arguments in the previous discussion do you think I did not address? I went over it again and I don't see a single unanswered claim. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2022 (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.