Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Indonesia 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. This is a close call in terms of !votes, but the arguments on the delete side are far stronger than those on the keep side. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Indonesia relations

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

another random combination from the obsessive creator. 1 minor bilateral agreement, non resident ambassadors. in 2008 Indonesia only had 1.7 million EUR of investment in Estonia. http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_176/2485.html LibStar (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I could find no third-party sources discussing the relationship, nor are these likely to exist. - Biruitorul Talk 03:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I do not in any way want to be associated with that boilerplate "keep for now" comment, I do see enough from the citation (within the article) to | Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to indicate that there is plenty of source material to describe an ongoing relationship between the two nations. I recognize that a few millions of euros worth of trade is not much, and that the agreements thus far are nominal.  On the other hand, Indonesia is one of the world's largest (and in my opinion, most overlooked) nations.  Hence, a forget-the-centralized-discussion but Keep !vote.  I'd add that if the article is to be deleted, then we should consider deleting Estonia – United States relations, which tells us even less than this article.  Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. The historical info is interesting, but relevant mostly to Estonia, not to Indonesia, so should be at an Estonia-related article if anywhere. Note to closing admin: The first "keep" vote is clearly invalid since the discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article could be improved into something meaningful. There isn;t much information in it but the two countries are gaining prominence on the global stage and the relationship could easily develop in the near future. HJMitchell    You rang?  17:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, what "could easily develop in the near future" does not concern us. - Biruitorul Talk 20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion . Given that where some bilateral agreement exists, and some history in the relationship, there is scope for future development. So even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time, the existence of such a bi-lateral agreement should at least qualify that article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. Martintg (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a sensible compromise. Give it its own article as and when there is a significant relationship. HJMitchell    You rang?  06:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the alleged sources in the article now are not about a relationship between these two states. To mention that an estonian traveller visited and wrote about Indonesia in the 19th century, 50 years before the modern state of Indonesia came into being, as evidence for some kind of bilateral relationship is beyond laughable; it's embarressing to whoever put it their in the thought it was relevently placed. There are no reliable, indepdendent sources that discuss and establish notability for this relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:50, 4 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.