Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Kosovo 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. (X! · talk) · @199 · 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Kosovo relations[edit]

Australia's relations with Kosovo don't extend much more than International recognition of Kosovo. the current articles states what is in International recognition of Kosovo and is based on primary sources in any case. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As habanero-tan pointed out (in relation to Exploding chicken), "(t)he general phenomena itself, [Australia-Kosovo relations], has not been covered sufficiently by independent sources to pass WP:N. Collecting examples and synthesizing an article from them in order to advance the position that it is a notable phenomena is original research WP:SYN." In other words, recognizing a country as a country, "supporting the rights and safety" of minorities there, etc. doesn't make their relations notable as a topic for an article. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect ot International recognition of Kosovo but it is, frankly, an unlikely search phrase, especially with the em dash. Drawn Some (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable bilateral relation. Could be expanded even further with inclusion of the details of the large number of Kosovar refugees taken by Australia on the then unique Temporary Protection Visas.[1] This caused quite a controversy at the time as it was a step away from the usual approach taken by successive Australian governments to immigration, then geared around permanent residency. Many of these refugees were placed in Tasmania, where the community fought hard to keep them in the country. These nominations are nearly always based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT. The moral panic about these bilateral articles (Oh no, there are 40,000 possible combinations ... ) is misplaced and laughable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn, do you have any independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic of Australia-Kosovo relations or is your !vote merely WP:ILIKEIT? The subject of refugees from that region being placed in Tasmania may indeed be notable, please write an article about that if you are so inclined. You have also mis-estimated the potential number of articles by about 20,000. Drawn Some (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you are right, there are 40,000 possible combinations. Not sure how that changes my point, 40,000/2,935,675 is an incredibly small percentage. Of those 40,000 only a small subset have been created and of the ones that have been created a fair chunk are clearly notable along the lines of Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations (the most ridiculous of the nominations seen to date, no doubt someone will beat it soon). The beat-up around this supposed problem has led to a bunch of self-appointed wiki-warriors who see deletion of these articles as some sort of holy crusade. The basic premise for deletion is their personal sense of incredulity that a relationship could exist followed by a half-baked google search. As for the ILIKEIT claim, I gave an argument for keeping it; the article has enough independent reliable sources to meet WP:N. I even supplied a link to a scholarly article specifically discussing Australian-Kosovar relations. Just because you can't find them, does not mean they do not exist. The world is larger than a google search. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you bring up the Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations AfD. That is the only one of these that I actually voted to keep. It had actual notability evident. It didn't require trying to stretch, twist and turn a passing mention or two into manufactured notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations was originally nominated as "Indonesia AND PNG" and the original article written as a description of one land mass. Many editors including myself did not support Indonesia and PNG article but rather Indonesia-PNG relations. You've given a very selective example here. the key test is significant coverage as per WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn, your statements make no sense whatsoever regarding the arithmetic but it is totally irrelevant. Either you can produce sources that discuss the topic of relations between Australia and Kosovo or you cannot. You may be confusing sources that discuss particular interactions as being sources that discuss this actual topic, Australia-Kosovo relations. The burden is on those who think the topic of the article is notable to demonstrate significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Since you are apparently in Australia you may have access to books on Kosovo-Australia relations that don't show up on Google books, or similar off-line information. Please share the information with us. Drawn Some (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one took five seconds to find (and was linked above if you had bothered to read it). Why would I bother spending any more valuable time looking for sources for an article the lynch mob is determined to delete. I repeat, sources are available—even if it seems unlikely to you. As for the arithmetic, the wiki-dramaz stirred up over this topic by the bilateral lynch mob with exaggerated claims of "40,000" articles are absurd. This campaign to remove articles that someone sitting 12,000 kms away considers "non-notable" is absurd. Honestly, the world is wider and larger than even Google knows. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"lynch mob is determined to delete" please be WP:CIVIL. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn, that article is about refugees, not about Kosovo-Australia relations. I think it would be a good reference for an article about Kosovar refugees but it is irrelevant to support the notability of the topic of Australia-Kosovo relations.

Also, you're the only one talking about numbers of articles, but if you're going to do so, please get the math right. The proper calculation is [(n*n)-n]/2 which is around 20,000, not 40,000. Drawn Some (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as LibStar points out, the fact of recognition is already documented, and as Drawn Some cogently argues, the few bits of information one can gather up about Australia and Kosovo don't actually treat "Australia–Kosovo relations"; neither should we. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support creation of an article Refugees from Kosovo as many countries took refugees. Precedent of refugee articles exist with Palestinian refugees and Jewish refugees. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how many random pairings of country relations will be created? Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Mattinbgn gave a link ("This one took five seconds to find") above, but the article only illustrates the gap in understanding between those who want to keep and those who want to delete these meaningless articles. The article mentions Australia and Kosovo (in connection with refugees, and in comparison with Canada's reaction), but the article in no way asserts there is any ongoing or notable relation between Australia and Kosovo. The recognition of Kosovo's independence, and the Kosovo refugee information, is notable, but that should be in an article on the development of Kosovo where it is important (it has no importance to Australia). Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That Australia decided to recognize the country is important to both Australia and to Kosovo. It alone might make an article. as there are other relationships as well, this article is appropriate. DGG (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I simply don't see the notability of the relationship. Took in some refugees....ok, what's so unusual about that? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the bilateral relations of all countries (unless totally nonm-existent will always be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not true, precedent has shown that at least 300 of these bilateral articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Australia is the most important country in Oceania and I'm sure Kosovo has already realized this. Also, Australia is represented in Kosovo via it's embassy in Vienna.[2] –Turkish Flame ^☎ 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

every country that has recognised Kosovo would represent itself if they don't have an embassy in Kosovo in a nearby country such as Serbia, Croatia or indeed Austria. using your logic, Australia does recognise Liechtenstein and San Marino as well, therefore should Australia-Liechtenstein and Australia-San Marino exist as well? LibStar (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can a country represented in Kosovo through it's embassy in Serbia? Serbia claims Kosovo as it's own territory. Yes Australia recognizes these micro-states but Kosovo isn't a micro-state. –Turkish Flame ^☎ 06:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well perhaps not Serbia but many countries represent Kosovo from not in Kosovo and don't have an embassy in Kosovo. simply being the largest country in Oceania does not give automatic notability in bilateral relations, otherwise you'd have Australia-Togo/Bhutan/Luxembourg/Nicaragua/Bolivia/Yemen/Lesotho/Seychelles etc. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually borderline - Australia housed many Kosovar refugees during the period when everything was up in the air, most of whom were peacefully returned once it was safe to do so. It wasn't a standard refugee situation in that it was negotiated between the government of the day, the UN and representatives of the Kosovars. However, I can't find any evidence of *current* association between the two governments. Orderinchaos 11:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All bilateral relations with countries like Kosovo are extra significant due to the importance the Balkans has had in IR these last few centuries. There are now multiple secondary sources to confirm notability, and doubtless many more that can be added. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been many, many situations in history nvolving refugees. That doesn't mean we cover every single one of them here at Wikipedia. The Balkans have not been particularly significant in the past few centures. Think, they didn't play a major role in either World War... etc. You see my point. So what if Austrailia recognized Kosovo? That in and of itself is not nearly grounds for a Wikipedia article about their IR. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bilateral relations are not inherently notable, even when Kosovo is involved. Significant coverage of relations in reliable, independent sources makes a topic notable (see WP:GNG if you don't believe me), and that's something this topic lacks. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.