Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia–Norway 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. Not really any new arguments as far as I can tell, and consensus neither leans strongly toward retention nor deletion. Juliancolton (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mongolia–Norway relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

noting the current references are all from Norwegian government or royal websites so not totally independent of the subject. there appears to be little to this relationship besides a few visits. the level of mongolian migration is minute, only 20 norwegians in Mongolia. no agreements, no known levels of trade, no embassies. yes there is development assistance but so do many Western countries. the level of development assistance in 2007 is less than USD1 million so not high either. a general lack of coverage of these relations except a few visits. gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I can't see any specific guideline this violates. It passes WP:V. Does WP:N apply for bilateral relations ? Claritas (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:N applies for all articles, unless specific criteria exists like WP:BIO for people. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete Strong delete—two visits, in one direction, years apart, from a second-rate politician do not qualify this relationship as notable. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 07:32, 25 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. Let's see if this one can't be a bit less acrimonious, hm? Shimeru (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - In my book, a relationship between two countries who don't have embassies in the other country (as is the case here - Mongolia's is in Belgium whilst Norway's is in China) can't really be described as notable - unless there's some special reason why its like that (as in the case of France and North Korea). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete What Jess says. They seem to be barely acknowledging each other. The Pebble Dare (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. As per sources diplomatic relationships have been intensifying in recent years. Development work sponsored by Norway is helping Mongolia to develop the infrastructure to exploit and trade her rich resources.  Its possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys.  Dont seen any benefit from deleting this growing relationship. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * do you have reliable sources to back the claim "Its possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys." yes it is possible but it's WP:CRYSTAL balling the relationship. It's also possible that these resources may not be highly needed by Norway's industries. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Come off it, Feyd. Its [sic] possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys [sic] – is this desperate three-way flouting of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR and WP:V really the best you can do? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You and LibStar are right TreasuryTag, my argument was a little strained as there was only one independent source at the time and i couldnt find another. Im glad the squad has been able to find a second to improve the notability. As to what more can be done, watch this space, all I'll say for now is Im going to make you famous :-). FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Im going to make you famous :-) – would you mind clarifying, please? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  duumvirate  ─╢ 18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With pleasure. A centralised discussion has been opened to see if there is consensus for a special guideline that will help secure the survival of these articles, and which may save spare us the unpleasantness  that sometimes break out in these debates. Your name is up in lights,  I hope deletionists such as SnottyWong  continue to find your words persuasive!  PS - please let them know that us inclusionists arent fierce, we're gentle as lambs unless we're attacked! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Norway sent people officially to Mongolia, and have given them funding, and worked with them on various projects. They thus have a relationship.    D r e a m Focus  23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was born, I am registered to vote in the United Kingdom, therefore I exist. Do I qualify for an article now? No. Norway and Mongolia have interacted, therefore their relations "exist" – does that mean they automatically qualify for an article? No. What do you think the notability policy is for, if mere existence is the only required threshold? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the BBC doesn't monitor and report on TreasuryTag. If they did in enough detail we would have an article on him, so long as he is known for more than one event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC didn't monitor and report on this. A particular Mongolian news agency did  – ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  person of reasonable firmness  ─╢ 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is the BBC monitoring service. They translate foreign news reports in any native language, that they find notable. They then summarize the foreign news in English. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * yes they have a relationship but whether or not it passes the bar for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no bar. They have a relationship, and it gets news media coverage.  All requirements for a Wikipedia article are met.   D r e a m Focus  07:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * then this should pass through with passing colors as all keep. simply having coverage does not guarantee an article. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouldn't the information be retained somewhere (at least where the embassies are and the date relations were established). Marge to Foreign relations of Norway and Foreign relations of Mongolia, perhaps? Buddy431 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, a few visits and some aid, but not a notable relation yet. Has received little attention in Norwegian public sphere, for one. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the "relations" amount to an occational politician going to the other country, the only non-government reference is a short article on a minor political visit. The countries don't even maintain embassies with each other. Level of coverage and development of relations isn't sufficient to justify an article. Hut 8.5 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and work to expand It has good references indicating notability, it just needs more information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Whatever insufficiencies there are in the article, the topic meets WP notability guidelines per se, in my estimation, and the way articles are created on WP is that raw early incarnations are improved and expanded over time. We all waste far too much time debating and redebating bilateral relations articles. There is plenty of garbage than needs to be cleaned up coming through the gates on WP every day. Deletionists should not obsess on articles like this, for which consensus to delete is highly unlikely no matter how many times the AfD pleas are made. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * this is not a renomination but the first AfD, "Deletionists should not obsess on articles like this" is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm and off-topic comments moved to talk See talk page to read the following comment from Cyclopia in full context. --Chaser (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC) See talk page for this thread before closing please.--Chaser (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per TreasuryTag. Clearly not notable.  There have been a lot of these types of random bilateral relations articles lately that have ended up at AfD and are being fiercely defended by the inclusionists.  Perhaps we should think about creating specific inclusion guidelines for bilateral relations articles?  After all, out of 195 countries, there are 18,915 2-country combinations.  Are all of these 18,915 combinations deserving of an article?    talk 16:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, why not? Since when we have a number limit on pages? -- Cycl o pia talk  17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite! Shall we make a page on each of my toes as well? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt your toes have been covered by BBC, by national government sources or by any other reliable source. You're not good at sarcasm, Treasury: you always miss the point. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC haven't reported on this...! See my comment above. Nor have they reported on every permutation of bilateral relations, which is what you were referring to. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's a Mongolian news agency. Ok. What's the difference? Do news agencies talk about your toes? -- Cycl o pia talk  19:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A)The difference is that bandying around 'the BBC' as if it's a deity—a point of view I do tend to sympathise with, but still...—is wrong, if untrue. B)There are combinations of countries about whose relationships no news agency has written. Just like my toes. So they don't get articles, WP:PAPER or WP:NOTPAPER. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There is a definite case for notability, due to media coverage from BBC and Norwegian news sources, reported in the article. The articles Reciprocal visits between high representative of states mean the relationship is not trivial. A consulate has been recently opened . Article is definitely encyclopedic, providing a structured compendium of notable and verifiable information. Given the reasons above, I see no benefit for the encyclopedia in deleting this article. -- Cycl o pia  talk  17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (Here we go again!): The usual suspects are taking their usual positions, which is fine, of course.  Here, the countries don't have embassies in their counterparts, so that prong of "automatic" notability does not exist.  There is verified content in the article and some of the sources are to press reports, so its not a completely useless article with no reason for being, either.  It falls into the great middle like most of these recent AfDs.  What is currently there is not as great as in Articles for deletion/Norway – Sudan relations (which closed as "no consensus" with a 14-6 keep !vote).  While the current content is not huge, what is there seems to benefit the project more than it burdens it, and is supported by sources.  Whether it satisfies WP:GNG is subject to fair debate.  If, however, the outcome is to delete, the relevant content can be copied into both Foreign relations of Mongolia and Foreign relations of Norway.  In my view, that's the ONLY question at issue here -- whether for organizational purposes this material should be its own article, or simply be duplicated in the separate articles.  There is no reason for the project to say nothing about the relations of these two countries anywhere, even if the relations aren't overwhelming.--Milowent (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, essentially non-existent relations concept. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Independent 3rd party cites establish notability. Case closed. I see all the usual suspects have shown up. The article looks good. Well done to those who are attempting rescue. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As evidenced by the refs and the text, this is simply not a notable bi-lateral relation. MickMacNee (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a suggestion at the village pump that you have quoted, not a policy. If the suggestion were reflective of current policy, it would not be a suggestion. As our currently policy stands, this article has met notability requirements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not a ludicrous suggestion though is it? It's the only one recieving any significant support, especially from uninvolved editors, which is a good sign it already does reflect current policy. If it makes you feel any better, I will restate my rationale in terms of current policy - this article is not notable and should be deleted becuase it has zero evidence of significant third party coverage in multiple reliable sources dealing with its actual topic, and not just aspects of it. And this is still the case, despite recent expansion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I totally agree with Milowent that " the ONLY question at issue here [is] whether for organizational purposes this material should be its own article, or simply be duplicated in the separate articles. There is no reason for the project to say nothing about the relations of these two countries anywhere, even if the relations aren't overwhelming." GNG is the default standard for a standalone article. This article clearly falls short of that standard, but that doesn't mean that the content of the article doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia. Rather, it means it should be in other articles, like perhaps "Foreign relations of...."  or "List of diplomatic missions of..." type articles. Yilloslime T C  02:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Addendum, Yilloslime. I think its a good point, and hopefully one that has consensus, that would help defuse this issue a bit.--Milowent (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I knew, WP:SIZE is the only time we would ever keep an article for organisational reasons alone, such as spinning out a sub-range of an alphabetically organized list, and that obviously doesn't apply here. I'd be interest to see evidence of any other genre of articles being kept simply for such organisational reasons. I think this is just another way of expressing the WP:USEFUL / WP:NOTPAPER angle, again without showing why people should simply ignore the inherent weakness of these as arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not saying organizational considerations should override notability as the criterion for where the content goes. However, whether something has a separate page or not is fought over way too much.--Milowent (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * MMN, you've missed the point. The article includes a number of facts, the question is where do we put them--in their own article or into other articles? WP:N is supposed to guide us in making that decision. Consider Bill Clinton's saxophone playing: Thousands of news articles mention it. Should we make an article dedicated to it (Bill Clinton's saxophone playing perhaps?) or is it sufficient to simply mention it in Bill Clinton? It's an organizational issue, not a WP:SIZE one, and it's a decision that WP:N should inform. Yilloslime T C  14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? I haven't missed your point, I thought I was agreeing with it. There is no way on earth anyone would be able to argue that we should have an article in Bill clinton's saxopohone playing for organisational reasons alone, and WP:N would absolutely come into it. Milowent appeared to me to be saying, (although he now says he wasn't), that the only issue in this Afd was whether it made good organisational sense to have a separate article for this info, or move it to other articles. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, MMN, apparently I've missed the point! My apologies. Yilloslime T C  17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably we just all couldn't imagine we would agree on something! Apologies if I added to the confusion.--Milowent (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - the same boring pattern playing out yet again: inexperienced editor creates article on topic no one has heard of before, LibStar nominates for deletion, Richard Arthur Norton starts dumping in trivia as part of his ongoing exercise in "watch me do this", Richard Arthur Norton canvasses his allies in the Article Rescue Squadron, who come over and rehash the same stale arguments. Only this time, more editors are seeing through the fog, and hopefully we can eliminate this particular article on this fictitious topic.
 * So here we go again. Yes, interaction exists between these two states. Not unexpected in an age of globalisation. There are exchanges of dignitaries and cash and goods, tiny migration flows, some pleasant words spoken reciprocally. Fine. But no independent source actually talks about any of this as such, as "Mongolia–Norway relations" or "Mongolia–Norway bilateral ties" or what have you, providing an overview of the topic. If that happens, then we should keep, but it's simply not the case here. - Biruitorul Talk 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First, your argument rests on a formality: that we don't have the right name for the subject matter because independent sources haven't used the magic words "Mongolia hyphen Norway relations". Yet despite the fact you acknowledge that interaction exists between the two states and that that interaction has been documented, your solution is "Delete". You don't even consider a possible vote for "Move". Second, your accusation of canvasing against Richard Arthur Norton is unfounded and your attitude is belligerent. RAN is spending his time trying to improve this project with sourced information and enlisting others to help him toward that goal. Since you find such an exercise "boring", I suggest you find a way to make better use of your time than criticizing hard-working wikipedians.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual, Cdogsimmons, your scolding misses the mark by a mile. First, I actually said that "no independent source actually talks about any of this as such, as 'Mongolia–Norway relations' or 'Mongolia–Norway bilateral ties' or what have you ", so your contention that I object to the article because it lacks sources using "the magic words 'Mongolia hyphen Norway relations'" is, well, entirely bogus. Second: you still apparently have not learned that verifiability does not equal notability. Yes, lots of things are documented by newspapers, magazines, books, and so forth. Most of them pass entirely unnoticed by this encyclopedia for a good reason: they fail our notability policy. Similarly with this fictitious topic: yes, interaction between these states has happened, it's been documented, but it's not been treated as a discrete topic by any source - thus, not notable.
 * As for my views on RAN's actions, come on. He has this odd impulse to cram the project with as much trivia as he can when it comes to articles on these made-up topics. It is, I suppose, an interesting behavioral case study, but it doesn't make for very compelling scholarship, regardless of his intent to "improve" the project, the "sourced" nature of the information (again, verifiability ≠ notability), and the "enlistment" (i.e., canvassing) of like-minded individuals wanting to participate in these silly "rescue" efforts. And yes, the cycle of watching this morass of trivia seep into the project unstopped is indeed very boring and disheartening, but that doesn't mean I won't stop fighting this nonsense. No, sir. - Biruitorul Talk 05:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Trivia" to you perhaps because you don't live in Norway and you don't live in Mongolia, and you don't know anyone from either, and you have no plan on going to either. I don't share your POV that documented foreign relations between nation states is trivia. The closing Admin should take note that this article has been significantly improved with independent 3rd party sources since the nom (then, now). Your statement that you think improving articles on Wikipedia is "silly" I think says it all.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but I evaluate articles' notability based on the GNG, not on whom I know or what my travel plans are. 2) It depends on how the documentation is done. If we're talking about, say, this or this, then sure, there's substantive evidence that a scholar has noticed the topic exists, and written about it. But if we're talking about, oh, some foreign aid grant or some charity, then yes, that's trivia not noticed by Wikipedia outside this series of nonsense articles, and it does nothing to validate this fictitious topic. 3) It depends on how one defines "improvement". If by "improvement" we mean the addition of reliable sources revolving around some topic the existence of which has been validated by real-world sources that have noticed the topic's existence, then by all means, that's what we're here for. But if by "improvement" we mean the dumping of trivia in a desperate and single-minded "rescue" effort with no logical basis, then yes, that's silly. Any further points, or have you tired of yours being taken down by my devastating logic yet? - Biruitorul Talk 15:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "devastating logic" relies on your entirely arbitrary assumption that stuff like foreign aid grants are "trivia" and that this is a series of "nonsense articles". Remove these assumptions, and it all crumbles to pieces. Also, hard to talk "fictitious" something that is backed up by sources, as even you yourself agreed. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to admit, there's not a single source in the article that's actually about the topic of M-N relations... Yilloslime T C  16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see about 14 sources of this kind in the article. But oh, right, they are not ponderous monographs entitled "The relationships between Norway and Mongolia"... *sigh* -- Cycl o pia talk  16:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Norway apparently has relations with everybody... We need a criteria on this, because otherwise this usual group will continue to try and out !votestack eachother. Delete because nothing in the references convinces me there's a notability sufficient for these sorts of articles. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Norway is such a slut.--Milowent (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your explanation, Shadowjams, is not reflective of the notability policy. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject show notability. There is no requirement that the sources must show a "significance" of these relations above and beyond other relations of Mongolia or Norway. Such a conclusion would be subjective and would violate WP:NPOV.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per sourcing, per notability. Not a delete worthy article.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated, which means that the first votes relate to a completely different article than the more recent ones. In fact, the deletion nomination was probably premature, since the article was still in development. Lampman (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has 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 majority of sources are webpages from the various  Norwegian government agencies--these are not "independent of the subject." The Norwegian Lutheran Mission source isn't about, even tangentially, relations between Norway and Mongolia, it just describes NLM's activities in Mongolia. The UNDP source is no better: In it's 11 pages, the only mention of Norway is "GEF, UNDP Mongolia and the Government of Norway, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, promote the commercialization of super-insulating technologies in the housing sector. Together they are providing technical and financial support in building straw bail and other energy efficient houses and refurbishing existing buildings with high insulating materials." That's it. Hardly direct, detailed coverage, and it's actually coverage of UNDP-Norway relations, not coverage of government to government relations. All the other sources are from Montsame News Agency. Setting aside this issue of this source's independence (it's a government news agency), the real problem I have is that none of the cited articles actually cover Norway-Mongolia relations "directly in detail." This one is only 80 words long--it's not detailed coverage of anything, and the topic it addresses is a specific event--the Norwegian crown prince's upcoming to visit Mongolia--not N-M relations. Ditto for this one (90 words) and this one (79 words). That leaves only this source which, at 543 words, is indeed meatier. But WP:GNG requires "sources", i.e. more than one source, and whether this one actually discusses N-M relations "directly, in detail" is doubtful. The primary topic of the article is not the countries' relations but rather a specific meeting between two leaders. Maybe somewhere in those 500+ words, the article steps back and puts the meeting in the context of the countries' relations, but I don't have access to the article so I don't know. But I doubt there's much room in a 500 word article for a digression that addresses the topic "directly in detail." And even if it does, it's just one source; GNG requires multiple. Yilloslime T C  02:19, 28 May 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.