Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mali–Russia 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   keep. Overall consensus was a keep. Nja 247 08:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mali–Russia relations

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

a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, almost all multilateral. there was a little bit of relations in 1961 in Soviet era, , and a Russian Government official rather than a senior Minister visited Mali in 2003 and said in diplomatic speak During discussion of questions pertaining to bilateral relations, the high level of understanding between Russia and Mali was noted and the mindset to step up joint work on the realization of the existing possibilities was reaffirmed including the usual The sides underlined the necessity of building up the efforts of the world community in the fight against international terrorism, and their readiness to closely cooperate in this sector. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is already enough information here for a stub to be built upon. - Epson291 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * recognising each other and having ambassadors is not enough for a bilateral article, could easily be covered in Foreign relations of X. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @495  · 10:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep enough info that is reliable and notable for stand alone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per my usual argument: WP:GNG is the only applicable guideline for determining keep/delete, and it requires that for a topic to have a stand-alone article there must significant coverage (direct, detailed coverage in ideally multiple sources) in independent, secondary sources. I'm not seeing that here, so WP:GNG are not met, so the article should be deleted or merged. The article cites Russian and Malian gov't sources, but those are not independent and thus do not establish notability. This and this (cited in the article and by the nom) are independent and secondary, but at 50 and 38 word each, respectively, I would not consider this coverage "significant". Then there's this 28 word article, currently being used as ref--again, this anything but detailed coverage. This book on Mali has a few passing mentions of the Soviets, but again, nothing that constitutes direct detailed coverage of Soviet-Mali bilateral relations, so I don't establish notability. If someone can dig up something independent that actually covers this topic directly and in depth (i.e. more than a few hundred words), I'll reconsider, but for now I'm not seeing anything that suggests this "topic" is notable. Yilloslime T C  17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment. The question at hand isn't "Are there ample sources to write an article", rather it is (or should be): "Are there ample sources to write an encyclopedia article". There's a fundamental difference between writing, say, a research paper, thesis, or homework assignment on something on one hand, and writing a encyclopedia article on the other. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source; it's supposed to just summarize secondary sources and not generate new information or interpretation of a topic. It should not beat a new path. But a research paper, book, thesis, etc, is free to rely on primary sources in addition to secondary and tertiary sources, free to draw new conclusions, and free to explore a topic hitherto unexplored. What's happening in many of these bilateral articles--and this one is a prime example--is more akin to this later process than to writing an encyclopedia article. Yilloslime T C  17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is because we are creating an almanac entry, not an encyclopedia article. The foreign relations entries to me are the type of material found in an almanac. Some extraordinary relationships, such as Russia-United States have enough in-depth material for an encyclopedia article, the rest are just almanac entries, too large to fit into the corresponding tables. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Yilloslime. There is nothing on the topic here, just on a collection of uncontextualized events.-- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the Soviet aid makes it notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * K2, K4. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably should have seen something like this coming... -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have done it months ago - would have saved a huge amount of typing... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - International relations. Scanlan (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * this seems WP:JUSTAVOTE, precedent from over 300 deleted bilateral articles shows that simply having relations does not equate to notable relations. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the 300 were deleted that I am aware of, all were merged into larger articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with LibStar on this. Just having relations does not establish notability. There must be reliable independent sources commenting on aspects of the relationship (which there are in this case). Many articles that did not meet that basic criterion were indeed deleted. Some factoids (e.g. embassy locations) were preserved in "Foreign relations of ..." articles, but the factoids were added to the parents during an independent clean-up effort, not as AfD merges. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, important bilateral relations, significant Soviet links. --Soman (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I discount the Soviet links because the Soviet Union and Russia aren't necessarily interchangble. Totally different govt. structure, philosophy and even geography. It's like going to a new Chinese restaurant and expecting to have the menu of the old Mexican restaurant that used to be in that building to still be relevent. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Your example itself is faulty. Consider User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations which I am working on. There is clearly a link between the relations of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russia. In terms of the Soviet Union, there should be no break because the international community regards Russia as the successor state to the Soviet Union, and therefore, Russia took on all treaties, responsibilities and 'debts' of the Soviet Union. Consider the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes which was signed in 2007, this agreement replaced the inforce agreement Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy which was signed by the Soviet Union and Australia in 1990. It is absolutely impossible to consider the foreign relations of Russia without considering the foreign relations of the state of which it is the successor state (Soviet Union), and the relations of the 'state' of which it is not a legal successor, but is widely regarded as its historical successor (Russian Empire). Based upon the argument you have presented, the Australian article I have linked to would, when I place it in mainspace in due course, should be swiftly be taken to AfD. If such a thing were to occur, I would expect such an AfD to be laughed down, because there is clearly links between the historical forms of Russia, and this is clearly recognised by the Russian and Australian governments, media, scholars and authors. --Russavia Dialogue 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep During the Soviet period Mali was one of the USSR's major African allies, and there is plenty to write an article on. One may need to refer to Russian sources to get such information, which is available. --Russavia Dialogue 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While on general principals I would lean to a keep, I would prefer more details of the relationship than what is currently in the article before I would comfortably vote to do so. (BTW, why isn't there a more general Africa-Russia relations? That would help establish which bilateral relations in this continent with the Soviet Union/Russia were notable.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the history of Soviet aid and current relations with Russia. The government in Moscow has always operated a superpower, whether it's the U.S.S.R. or the Russian Federation, and like any superpower, it maintains its interests worldwide. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't consider the Soviet Union and Russia as interchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep — a notable subject of inter-state relations (scale large enough) covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the sources in the page show compliance with WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 02:19, 23 July 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.