Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonia–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. None of the Keep comments (bar possibly TM's) give any policy-based reason for keeping this article. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia–Indonesia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

whilst it can be verified that these countries have diplomatic contact. The fact that Indonesia recognises Macedonia is covered here Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia. this gnews search shows no significant coverage of bilateral relations, most of it is mulitlateral. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment As per my recent close of a similar discussion, I'd like to remind all participants to remain civil and refrain from assumptions of bad faith or personal attacks. Shimeru (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Bilateral Relations wikia and delete; no real notability to speak of. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a "bilateral relations wikia"? Mandsford 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://bilateralrelations.wikia.com/wiki/Bilateral_Relations_Wiki Yilloslime T C  17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * the article (and sources) say(s) there is significant development on bilateral (!) and multilateral plan. political meetings and dialogue between these two countries has improved the last years. if i find more information i will improve this article the next weeks. Keep. Habel (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Tag as a stub. Macedonia is notable. Indonesia is notable. Ergo, the topic of the foreign relations between these nations is a notable one, per se, on the face of it, without further ado. This article is an insufficient treatment of the topic and should therefore be tagged as a stub, which is the way insufficient articles are improved on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Macedonia is notable. Indonesia is notable. Ergo, the topic of the foreign relations between these nations is a notable one. Rubbish. Notability is not inherited: while Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are both notable, their marriage ceremony and their children do not automatically qualify for individual articles. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * do you mean insufficient in terms of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Milkshakes are notable, Elbows are notable. By this logic, Elbow milkshakes are notable. Or how about this: Strawberries are notable, and strawberry milkshakes actually exist, and yet we have no strawberry milkshake article... Yilloslime T C  17:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get right on that Strawberry Milkshake article. Sounds deliciously notable.--TM 18:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is, there's no need to have a separate article on it when it's already adequately covered in Milkshake. Yilloslime T C  18:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has anyone searched for more sources in the native languages? As it stands now, its borderline at best I suspect.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Foreign relations of Macedonia . Delete Although I understand Carrite's argument, I have to add the context that there was a long lasting controversy in 2009 over a plethora of articles that were described as "Nation X - Nation Y relations", and the consensus was that the diplomatic relations between two different nations is not automatically notable.  Elements of notability usually include resident ambassadors, extensive trade, and other items.  The consensus was that relations should be mentioned in the "Foreign relations of..." pages, but that separate pages should be created only upon showing of significance.  Mandsford 21:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Even by my rather expansive standards this is quite nonspecific; unless more can be found, it should be merged/redirected for now.  DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has a few reliable sources, and while that's necessary for an article, it's not sufficient. Our notability requirements are quite clear that if we are to have a stand alone article on a topic, then some of those sources must also be independent of the subject, and they must "address the subject directly in detail." In its current state this article cites no such sources, and I can't find any in my own searches. The embassy and Ministry of Foreign Affairs sources are reliable, but not independent of the subject. The only other source is about a specific event, and while it makes reference to these counties' bilateral relationship, it would be a stretch to say it covers the topic "directly in detail." (And I removed another source that was about an annual multilateral meeting that happened to be Indonesia that year--it was not even remotely about Macedonia-Indonesia relations.) I've got the article watchlisted and if independent sources (plural) are added that actually discuss the topic directly and in detail, then I'll switch to keep. And for what it's worth, I the comment I made here also applies. Yilloslime T C  05:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, it will be expanded. Wikipedia has many smaller stubs than this one. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the weakness of other articles is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS LibStar (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No its not. whether other articles exist and continue to exist is evidence of what people deem notable in the long term.--Milowent (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * hardly, the true test if "weak" articles are notable is if they survive an AfD, not survival because hardly no one is interested in building them up. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the countries have pretty significant economic relations, as clear through the 135 million USD dollars in trade exchange they had in 2008. Here are 5 news stories from the Macedonian press directly about Indonesia-Macedonia relations.--TM 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Tellers' wands  ─╢ 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak to medium delete—while there are some specific bilateral treaties, that (short and scant) passage is hopelessly out of date, and the entire page is mainly dependent on the Macedonian and Indonesian foreign ministries as sources – I count them as being six out of the eight citations. This is not the third-party referencing which is expected of articles. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That Indonesia recognises the existence of Macedonia is worthy of a footnote in the article on Macedonia, not an article in itself. I don't believe we have firm consensus that the existence of diplomatic relations (which requires, as far as I can tell, the existence of a telephone line and a nameplate for someone's desk in the respective foreign ministries) is in itself a sufficient indicator of sufficient implied secondary sourcing as to consider all such bilateral relations capable of meeting the GNG. At present, the sole secondary source on the article is just a mouthpiece for the office in question, and even then it specifically says that this exact relationship is not commonly heard of amongst the Indonesian population! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Another bi-lateral relation article with zero evidence of significant third party coverage of the actual topic. Infact, I see no evidence of any independent coverage at all. It's a collection of primary sources and press releases. Not good enough, not by a long shot. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a systematic bias amongst most editors and we all understand it. Neither Macedonia nor Indonesia are English speaking or developed nations. These nations produce a significant amount more online media. The Macedonian news service, which is online, has covered the relations in detail, as I linked to above. 135 million dollars a year in trade might not seem like much to developed economies, but surely you must see that for a country like Macedonia, this is a very significant amount of trade. The combination of significant and, as the sources indicate, growing trade relations and the understanding regarding the systematic bias should point this discussion towards a keep.--TM 02:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Economy of the Republic of Macedonia, the country has $3.035 billion of exports, $4.942 billion of imports. So, even if the idea here was to judge for ourselves what is and isn't significant, which it isn't, then no, $135m does not appear to be significant even for Macedonia. MickMacNee (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the Wikipedia Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (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.