Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Croatia relations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. -- User:Docu 00:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Belarus–Croatia relations[edit]

Belarus–Croatia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

another random combination. non resident embassies. 3 minor bilateral agreements including the usual double taxation one [1]. no coverage of relations except on the football field [2]. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for utterly lacking significant coverage in independent sources. - Biruitorul Talk 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone searched in Belorussian and Croatian? Some of these like Tuvalu/Vatican City are absurd but there is a possiblity that these countries have significant relations. Drawn Some (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just volunteered. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No apparent sources to back up the topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge How about merging relevant info to Foreign relations of ... articles for each individual country, thereby avoiding combinations of 203 sovereign countries taken 2 at a time articles like this? Edison (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the future please search through the official government webpages for both nations involved, searching for the name of the other. This shows three pages of results. The tax agreement alone makes them have a notable relationship. Dream Focus 03:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no, a tax agreement in itself is not proof of significant relations. many bilateral combinations have been deleted with tax agreements. a trade agreement is much more significant and notable. many of those sources are multilateral not bilateral, some are even Eurovision which is zero evidence of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall there ever being an agreed upon policy on which types of relationships are notable and which are not. Some were originally against trade agreements, as I recall. Anything that involves millions of people, is surely notable. Dream Focus 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say and I'll let others discuss, one taxation agreement does not make for notable relations. as for countries with millions of people, just say 2 such countries trade but there trade is like the 150th largest out of all countries they trade with, that is not notable, even if it technically affects millions of people. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is when the media take notice of an event, not some arbitrary cut off point in a ranking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for realizing these sources cover events, not the topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And when you string events together into a prose narrative you have an article. And when you string events together and arrange them alphabetically or chronologically you have a list. It is fun and easy, try it. It will make you feel good inside. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so one mention in a newspaper is good enough for Wikipedia? does Wikipedia report every event reported in the media? see WP:NOT#NEWS. LibStar (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS concerns creating an article based on one event. So when trade minister X is mentioned in a news event he or she' doesn't get their own article. When President X visits country X, that visit doesn't get its own article space. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sources above are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the absence of reliable sources that establish this is a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the additional material described in the article, establishing notability. Article will benefit from further expansion. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found above demonstrating notability. There's probably much more in Belarusian and Serbo-Croatian. --Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially nonexistent. WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 19 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Belarus–Croatia_relations&oldid=1086371617"