Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia–Tonga 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia–Tonga relations

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

These two countries have no bilateral relations. Tonga broke relations with the USSR once they dissolved in 1991, but decided not to create relations with Russia. For more information, see Soviet-Tonga relations. Tavix | Talk  11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Funny that it's claimed Tonga doesn't have relations with Russia, because only 12 days ago Russia's ambassador to Tonga presented his letters of credence to the Tongan king in Nuku'alofa. Also File:Vladimir Putin 9 November 2000-10.jpg shows a photo of Vladimir Putin with the Tongan ambassador to Russia at the ceremony of presentation of diplomatic credentials. Soviet-Tonga relations is wrong. There is also a book entitled "Дипломатический ежегодник. 2005" (ISBN 5949350839) (not available online) which includes a section of details and history of Russia-Tonga relations. This is going to be another subject which has information offline. Then there's also things such as the Mir re-entry which saw Russian operations occurring in Tongan waters. The article wouldn't be a kb hog, but there are some notable relations which can be detailed in it. --Russavia Dialogue 11:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Soviet Union–Tonga relations; there's really no need to maintain two articles on this subject. - Biruitorul Talk 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested by Birutorul, despite the political changes, it seems sensible. The relations of the USSR with every individual nation are & remain notable. DGG (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable pairing. The Russian ambassador to Tonga actually resides in Wellington, New Zealand, there is no permanent representative on Tongan soil, not even an honorary consul. The mentioned book "Дипломатический ежегодник. 2005" (ISBN 5949350839) is a Russian government funded publication (hardly an independent source). Tonga maintains only five diplomatic missions overseas, but Russia is not one of them. Having space debris rain down on Tongan territorial waters hardly constitutes a notable basis for an article on bi-lateral relations. Martintg (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The publication is written by the rector of the Russian Diplomatic Academy and is a scholarly publication. Unfortunately, I can't find trivial joint-stamp issues. But I have found information on Russia having fishing rights in Tongan waters, and such rights are done at the governmental level. Additionally, there is also a history of the Russian Empire sending ships to the region, visiting the Friendly Islands in addition to French Polynesia and the like, Otto von Kotzebue being one of those. Adam Johann von Krusenstern visited and charted the islands on his voyages. A lot of this information will be found in offline sources. --Russavia Dialogue 04:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Russian Diplomatic Academy is run by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, i.e. it is a government organisation, hardly an independent source to establish notability. Otto von Kotzebue and Adam Johann von Krusenstern were Baltic Germans in service of the Russian Empire, but any contacts they may have had with Tonga is non-notable. Martintg (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Baltic Germans were subjects of the Russian Empire, and the ships on which they travelled, and the expeditions they undertook were at the behest of the Russian Empire. Additionally, being a government educational institution is not reason enough for discounting, otherwise we would have to discount almost every single institute of higher learning in the western world (with the exception of the US), for example Australian National University. This would mean that research and publications by Elena Govor would be ineligible for use on an article on Australia-Russia relations, because she is connected with ANU, and ANU receives its funding from the Australian government. What comes into play is the person an expert in their field, and do we expect them to fact check what they write? In both cases, the answer is YES. Some common sense goes a long way on WP. --Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Australian National University isn't a part of some government department, unlike the Russian Diplomatic Academy which is a part the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Martintg (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, I still think it is a most ridiculous argument for an editor to discount scholarly papers from one of the world's top diplomatic colleges just because it has a connection to the government. Bugger me drunk if I should use materials from www.da.mod.uk to build an article on Russia-UK relations; they would be discounted because it is part of The Establishment. As I said common sense goes a long way on WP, and the continuous argument by yourself and other editors in discounting Russian sources is getting rather tired and boresome. --Russavia Dialogue 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly merge Soviet-Tonga relation article into this one (as a history backgrounder). There is sufficient information to justify having this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:20, April 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:10, 27 April 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.