Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia–Romania 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia–Romania relations

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

The only notable interactions these two have had are: 1) in 1935, during the Abyssinia Crisis, Romanian Foreign Minister Nicolae Titulescu spoke out forcefully at the League of Nations in favour of Ethiopian sovereignty and against Italian aggression; 2) Nicolae Ceauşescu was a good friend of Mengistu Haile Mariam (who was, however, far from being his closest African friend), also visiting him on an African tour in 1983. The first part can easily be mentioned (indeed is) in Titulescu's biography, and in an expanded article on the Abyssinia Crisis. The second is due for mention in a revamped article on Ceauşescu, which will doubtless refer to his policies in Africa. I imagine it can also be mentioned in Mengistu's article. But the point is that while the pair have had two somewhat notable encounters, sources do not exist documenting an actual relationship between them, which is what is needed for an article with this scope. Given that, we should delete. Biruitorul Talk 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per arguments presented in the nom. I have also contemplated a distinct umbrella article on "Communist Romania and the Third World" or something, were one could structure all relevant info on what was and wasn't distinct about the communist state's relationship with various post-colonial countries. I think it deserves some planning, and perhaps sandboxing, so I'd welcome any suggestions or alternatives; at this moment however, it is not one of my priorities. Dahn (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep although on first look I would have supported delete, there is evidence of some trade relations http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ethiopia+romania+trade&num=10&hl=en however most of these articles are subscription only. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this source, Romania in 2008 had exports of €1 million and imports of €2 million from Ethiopia - in an economy that exported €26 billion and imported €41 billion. And regardless of size, the fact is that we still lack sources addressing the relationship as their primary topic. - Biruitorul Talk 04:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for that. but I'm also thinking relative importance to Ethiopia as well which is a much smaller economy. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See the map of Ethiopia's exports, where Romania barely registers. Far more significant as trade partners are Djibouti, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the US, China, Italy, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 06:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Trade relationships count. True, on that basis many nations have relationships with each other--but we're not paper. TArticles such asthese are a good way to rpesent what material there is available. DGG (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivia. News reports about jet-setting delegations that would never be covered elsewhere on Wikipedia (but are somehow considered notable because they fill a perceived "need" in this series of nonsense articles) are not a valid substitute for reliable sources discussing this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 07:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per nom would be sufficient, but noting that it meets and exceeds the usual standard of WP:N, and that there's nothing unusual about this article to merit irregular treatment is probably worthwhile. Wily D 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But why have a bogus article potentially bringing together two wholly separate intersections (where these haven't been studied together) when the information is far more logically presented in its proper context? And, pray tell, is there anywhere that can link to this article, or is it just going to sit there, perhaps presenting information already mentioned in contexts that actually make sense, just because you want it to? - Biruitorul Talk 19:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * False premises lead to false conclusions. This is the proper context to discuss different facets of a single topic, which comprises a legitimate article.  By assuming facts before checking them, you fail to evalute the situation correctly. Wily D  20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a topic for a legitimate article, because no source has treated this topic in depth. The two relevant intersections the pair has had fit much better into a different structure, and not one artificially created to fill a perceived "gap". And again: do you actually see any article linking to this one? - Biruitorul Talk 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the extensive coverage on trade relations indicated by LibStar. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, for neither country is trade with the other of much importance. - Biruitorul Talk 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on the lack of importance of trade and commerce between two nations is noted, but most of us disagree. --Oakshade (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of opinion. Romania in 2008 had exports of €1 million (.003% of the total!) and imports of €2 million (.005% of the total!) from Ethiopia - in an economy that exported €26 billion and imported €41 billion. Ethiopia's main trade partners are Djibouti, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the US, China, Italy and others - Romania ranks far down that list. Yes, someone paid to do so once made pleasant declarations about "strengthening trade". So? Does that actually mean anything in context? Clearly not, as the numbers show. And of course you say nothing about the Titulescu and Ceauşescu-Mengistu stuff (the interactions that, though they should be mentioned elsewhere, are indeed notable), instead preferring to zero in on utter trivia that we'd never bother to mention outside this series of nonsense articles.
 * And if kept, have you even thought what could possibly link to an article that supposedly will contain trivia about a tiny trade flow, how it will fit into the existing structure of articles? Or will it just sit there in isolation, presenting a couple of random, out-of-context numbers? - Biruitorul Talk 02:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As it stands, this article asserts nothing, and sources less. Until it does, it is non-notable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, notable. Ikip (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This AfD represents a serious bias toward English launguage sources. Maybe you should learn to read Amharic. --Petri Krohn (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the above provides zero reasoning as how the article subject meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's far more likely that sources exist in Romanian, as recorded history in Africa is much more sporadic, but that's irrelevant. The burden on "keep" voters is to find sources, not to suggest what exotic languages others should learn. - Biruitorul Talk 07:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find that burden too heavy to shoulder all by myself. I prefer to engage in sneaky vandalism, which is much easier. Dr B Badger (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any passing admin, the above user B badger is a sock of . Bali ultimate (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just go ahead and report her to SNI. She has a long history here.-- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no reliable sources that discuss a relationship mean that we should have no article on the alleged relationship keeping in mind verification and notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:02, 5 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.