Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia – Timor-Leste 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia – Timor-Leste relations

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

lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral. yes Russia recognises East Timor but so do many countries. A Russian plane crashing in East Timor does not add to notable relations nor does not sending peacekeepers as most nations in the world did not send peacekeepers, (only 3 countries did I think). LibStar (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is obvious that the nominator has not done a search in Russian, otherwise, he would be able to see that there is notability. As I am now having to expand other articles due to the nominator not checking sources and being ignorant of history, I may not have time to get around to save this in time, but if deleted, it will be recreated in due course by myself. --Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment doing a search is not being ignorant of history, you are welcome to provide searches in Russian as I don't speak Russian, however, East Timor uses English as a working language so many things related to East Timor are published in English. Recreating immediately after deletion is generally not recommended, although OK in certain circumstances as per WP:RECREATE. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll hold off until you present what you have Russavia, but your "ignorant of history" remark is out of line. While might speak Russian, I don't and I don't care too. Non-English sources are allowed, but there needs to be verifiability. If this is so obvious and so notable, I'm sure you'll be able to show something verifiable easily. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  09:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Russavia Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Russavia. A notable subject of inter-state relations (scale large enough) covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Low-profile, yes, but still notable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:46, July 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a WP:ITSNOTABLE argument; this is a WP:N argument, backed up by the references in the article itself. Something else to avoid?  Tongue-in-cheek comments.  But I might be contradicting myself on this point...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, July 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Soviet relations with national liberation movement and place of East Timor in Soviet foreign policy --- several pages in Soviet foreign policy and Southeast Asia (Leszek Buszynski) devoted to the topic. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator of this article, User:Russian Luxembourger, was not notified of this discussion by the nominator. I have notified her per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the improvements to the page demonstrate the notability of the relations. TerriersFan (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep doing a superficial search for current events instead of thinking about the historical dimensions is careless--especially now when we have found historical relations justifying many such articles. Anyone can of course make a  mistaken AfD nomination, or do an incorrect  search--I have done these myself once in a while. Not learning by experience in a string of such nominations, and  trying to reply to every keep opinion and justify even the most obviously wrong of them, is beginning to look unconstructive. DGG (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided evidence of search for sources. Also the majority of bilaterals article I nominate have been deleted. as an admin, I'm disappointed that you are not assuming good faith and choose to deride others. You consistently !vote keep and rarely provide examples of sources to back your argument. that's not constructive. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG didn't say you weren't acting in good faith. He was saying that your approach to deletion of these articles is too hasty and your searches are too cursory. Deletion voters should try to search in foreign language sources, for instance. In this case you didn't let the article creator know about the deletion. To your credit you don't use insulting arguments like "trivia" and "cruft" - unlike some other serial deletionists - but this crusade against bilateral relations articles is becoming increasingly unconstructive. Some of them do deserve deletion - and I have argued for the deletion of one today - but better efforts at improving articles before deletion are needed. Why not approach the relevant country Wikiprojects about articles that look weak if you're having trouble improving the articles, and only then propose deletion? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. For articles with a historical dimension Google Books is much more useful than Google News, and finds enough sources to demonstrate notability. I hope that the nominator, who, before going on this recent deletion spree, was obviously ignorant of world history of the last half-century, has now learnt enough to stop nominating articles about Russia's relations with other countries for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 28 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.