Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldova–Switzerland 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. The general consensus seems to suggest that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. Black Kite 00:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moldova–Switzerland relations

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

a lack of significant third party coverage on this topic, mainly sport and mulitlateral. . French search. limited coverage like and one visit 10 years ago, but would need more to have an article. Sporting results like this do not advance notability but I know of at least 1 editor that thinks so. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a matter of style per the bilateral relations discussions, and handle via the Foreign Relations of X articles listed at See Also here. JJL (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ooh, I don't know. Glancing at the external links brings up enough bilateral links dating back centuries till the present to warrant an article. Rafablu88  02:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "dating back centuries till the present" --- I think you'll find that Moldova has existed as an independent state for less than two decades. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "1209 Geneve" is an address, although that might not be what's being referred to. Mandsford (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're referring to. I was talking about diplomatic meetings, economic ties, aid, cultural links etc. The reflist is pretty solid now. Rafablu88  21:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Moldova and the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, the countries maintain diplomatic relations and have multiple bilateral agreements between them. — Rankiri (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * but where is the third party coverage of this? LibStar (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Generally, if there's not a notable relationship (i.e., not much more than exchange of representatives and some agreements), these are mentioned in the Foreign relations of... articles. The information survives, but not as its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I added some possible sources as external links - mostly Swiss aid. If someone works them into the article, it might be enough to show notability. Aid is a form of relationship. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of sources now added to show a significant relationship. TerriersFan (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * External links maybe show potential, but the decision should be based on the article itself. This one has been around for a while without being expanded. The links do not show much 3rd party interest in the relationship, just that some verifiable content could potentially be added. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please recall WP:NOEFFORT and the fact that the post-Soviet Republic of Moldova is only 19 years old. Additionally, one can easily argue that unless there is a very good reason to think otherwise, such official sources as foreign ministries and departments of external affairs can also be admissible as objective, reliable sources. Here's another two references:, 2a2b. — Rankiri (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid argument. Official sources can be assumed reliable and information from them can be included - it is verifiable. But they do not show notability, for which independent sources are needed, and the article is very short of such sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * official govt websites generally say relations are good and we want to improve bilateral relations (yet to see "we want to worsen our relations"), Government websites can verify relations and agreements but you need more to establish a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to assume that most of the participants in this discussion speak neither German nor Moldovan, and I find it unreasonable to expect extensive coverage of these bilateral relationships from uninvolved English-speaking media outlets and news agencies. Besides, did you even look at the references? — Rankiri (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google Translate doesn't have Moldavian but I was able to find more significant coverage in Russian newspapers:
 * (translation)
 * (translation)
 * "The new phase of Swiss-Moldovan relations" (translation)
 * Feel free to browse the results yourself if you like: Moldova Switzerland news -football. — Rankiri (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to have more substance than the usual whimsical unions of seemingly randomly joined nations. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing anything here that looks notable. All I'm seeing is the ordinary functions of government. Ordinary is not notable. Notable means beyond the ordinary. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia jargon, notable does not mean extraordinary or unusual. It just means that reliable independent sources have discussed the subject. There is a shortage of such sources here. A subject could be very dull and routine and still be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already provided five nongovernmental sources and a good reason to believe that more such sources exist. It should be enough to establish the subject's notability, don't you think? — Rankiri (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough content now, with enough independent sources to establish notability. Thanks to Rankiri for tracking down sources and noting them in this discussion, and a gentle slap with a minnow for failing to add the content found to the article itself. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article appears well sourced and the subject matter notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep per fantastic improvements by Aymatth2 and Rankiri. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment this doesn't address the WP style/organization issues. Is this the best format for WP given every possible X-Y relations article? JJL (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Potentially there are about 20,000 of these articles (200 x 200 / 2) but in practice far fewer. Some are large, like Canada-United States relations or Cuba-United States relations and clearly should be separate articles, some are smaller like this one, and some are just stubs that should obviously be merged into the parent "Foreign relations of ..." article. I am inclined to say that if there are more than 10-15 lines of content (not refs etc.) it is better to make a separate article, just because the parent would get unwieldy and potentially enormous if all the related X-Y relations articles were merged into it, particularly for countries like China or the USA. The format will tend to depend on the content. An article should give balanced coverage of all significant aspects, and that will vary from one article to another. Our readers are very unlikely to notice inconsistency. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough valid content, to justify an article, and plenty of references.  D r e a m Focus  03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this appears to meet the consensus that well-referenced bilateral relations articles ought to be kept, and with all the citations and information now in it, this certainly makes the grade. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to rescue efforts. Well done!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:32, 21 August 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.


 * 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.