Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania–Slovenia 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Romania–Slovenia relations

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

Fails WP:N - no independent sources confirm any sort of a meaningful bilateral relationship. The presence of embassies is already recorded at List of diplomatic missions of Slovenia and List of diplomatic missions of Romania; their membership in NATO at Members of NATO and of the EU at Member State of the European Union. Yes, Sandoz has invested in Romania, but note that its investment is trivial enough not to have been mentioned in the Sandoz article (where it could easily be mentioned, if relevant); and yes, a Slovenian prime minister once spent two days in Romania, but these either fail the "substantial" or the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. There's certainly not enough of a relationship that we could write about which goes much beyond the trivial. Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, while there is obviously a meaningful bilateral relationship but it is impossiblle to confim this from independent sources. Statements by foreign ministers, heads of state, etc, unfortunately cannot be regarded as independent. Wuzziest (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User indef blocked, see ANI thread --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Two near-by countries in eastern europe would be expected to have notable relations. Visits by heads of state and the like are what intergovernmental relations are composed of. DGG (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Expecting" sources is not a substitute for actually finding them. Visits are generally of a news/trivial nature - certainly we'd never think of mentioning them outside this series of nonsense articles, for instance in the subjects' biographies. And anyway, the visit I pointed out is from a Romanian government site, and thus fails the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - As most of us very easily were "expecting" sources about two neighboring eastern European countries, only a few seconds g-search brought up many significant secondary sources directly about Romania-Slovenia relations, thus demonstrating handily passing WP:NOTABILITY.
 * Slovenia to Develop Bilateral Cooperation
 * Romania, Slovenia sign sea transportation agreement
 * Dobro sodelovanje z Romunijo (Slovene)
 * Romunski predsednik v Sloveniji (Slovene)
 * Romunija lovi EU in upa na izkušnje Slovenije (Slovene)
 * Minister dr. Rupel sprejel romunskega zunanjega ministra (Slovene)
 * Romunski zunanji minister danes na obisku v Sloveniji (Slovene) (There's many more)--Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously the two countries have an active relationship. I have added content from the sources found by Oakshade to the article, which are sufficient to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute - a "sea transportation agreement"? A visit no one remembers? Let's not prioritize trivia. This stuff would never appear in the subjects' biographies, or anywhere else; it's news, and pretty minor at that. There is no source discussing "Romania–Slovenia relations" as such, and for someone here to try to infer bits of news as being evidence of notability for this topic flies in the face of WP:SYNTH. Without such significant coverage of the relationship, we merely lower our standards to include trivia in this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul Talk 06:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The relations between two countries consist of official meetings, agreements, disputes, trade and investment. An article on bi-lateral relations should describe this activity, giving sources that verify the accuracy. To people that care about the subject such as businesspeople or diplomats, the events may be far from trivial. The newspapers report these events because they know that some of their readers will be interested - the relations are notable. I prefer to avoid citing "in-depth analysis" papers about the relationship, which will rarely be neutral. Better to just give the facts and let them speak for themselves. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a line between newspaper coverage of daily events that mean nothing from an encyclopedic perspective (state visits, symbolic agreements, and the like) and those that do have some meaning beyond the daily news. As usual, articles like this one choose to prioritize the former, because the latter doesn't really exist. And no thought is given, for instance, to how this might fit into existing article structures - no article could link to this one, could it? - Biruitorul Talk 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, meetings between heads of state are more important than cricket matches, which I find extremely boring. But I accept that an article like 1999 Cricket World Cup is valid, because reliable independent sources (daily news stories) discuss each game. I could not imagine that article if it only talked about the broader significance of the tournament and did not mention the individual games and results. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article's content is valid, and well referenced.  D r e a m Focus  04:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly does it validate? Trivia about visits we'd never think of mentioning in their subjects' biographies, but only do so in this series of nonsense articles? - Biruitorul Talk 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per 2 x embassy, state visits and economic ties in the EU. + Danube. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Embassies already mentioned elsewhere; state visits trivial; EU ties mentioned elsewhere; Danube also trivial and its relevance not validated by third-party sources. - Biruitorul Talk 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable intersection. Most of the content of the article describes events in which both countries happened to be involved. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not think this article is notable. Kapnisma (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aymatth2 & DGG. Especially since this draft describes an arguably tangible & notable relationship. -- llywrch (talk) 17:58, 7 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.