Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Slovenia 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. Flowerparty ☀ 00:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Slovenia relations

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

non resident embassies, simply being EU members does not prove notable bilateral relations. Estonian foreign ministry notes that trade with Slovenia is 0.1% so it's insignificant. I do note a number of minor bilateral agreements (the usual double taxation, visa etc) but they're not subject to independent coverage. most coverage is in multilateral context especially as new entrants to EU. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This reminds me of those xxxx in popular culture articles. Significant in-depth coverage of the topic  in independent reliable sources is needed to establish notability.  It's not enough to synthesize a bubble and squeak article out of bits of trivia and then try to pretend like it's not leftovers. Drawn Some (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep According to the foreign ministry webpage Slovenia (while still part of Yugoslavia) was one of the first to recognize the independence of Estonia, in fact they did that even before Iceland. Vice versa Estonia was the fifth country to recognize the independe of Slovenia (see ), what is somewhat notable given that back then most major European countries were reluctant to do so. Also see this article in the Economist, it seems that not only outside observer note the similarities between the two countries, but also government officials who see the other country as a role model. I would also like to add that one should not expect a lot of coverage in English, given the smallness of the two countries. Stepopen (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As noted above there is material to support the notability of the relationship, and I will be happy to reconsider my vote once this has been added. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A handful of treaties the likes of which many other countries have with others, coupled with tiny trade and a lack of coverage of the topic as a whole do not make this of earth-shattering import on the world stage. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I read the economist.com article cited above. It does not discuss relations between the two countries. It says merely that they have some similarities: one escaped from the USSR, the other from Yugoslavia; they are both small; they have both created stable, prosperous countries with strong institutions. The article has no useful content and expansion is unlikely. No sources discuss these relations. It is extreme WP:SYNTHESIS to claim these relations are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Read more than the first two paragraphs. The article clearly says that the Slovenian government sees Estonia as a role model due to a perceived similarity. If the Slovenian prime minister visits Estonia, and then emphasizes that this similarity and that Slovenia shoud emulate Estonia then this exactly what we need for an article about official relations. Add to that the specials around 1990/1991 as mentioned above and there is quite a bit one could write here about these two countries relations. And all that only using English language sources, and not even looking at sources in Slovenian and Estonian. Stepopen (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you're putting too much emphasis on generic diplomatic babble which means practically nothing unless there is some large scale intergovernmental cooperation (which there isn't). --Yerpo (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - not sufficiently substantial to warrant an article. Eusebeus (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is nothing in this "article" that cannot be represented by a table row in the articles about both countries' foreign relations. --Yerpo (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. They recognize each other and don't even have embassies or consulates in each others countries, let alone anything notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per failing WP:GNG- there are no independent, reliable sources that discuss this topic directly or in detail. I agree with Johnuniq's analysis of the Economist source. Yilloslime T C  16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Suspend the discussion! The notice from Administrators' noticeboard suggests a no consensus on all of the bilateral relations articles (X-Y Relations). Until further resolutions are made, the discussions should be suspended. See AN for more details. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * no, this standstill is purely a proposal that has no standing until endorsed by consensus. others have agreed that existing AfDs will be allowed to run their course. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 14 June 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.