Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Sudan relations
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 No Consensus, defaults to Keep. Nakon 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bulgaria–Sudan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
no real evidence provided of a notable relationship. could easily be covered in Foreign relations of Bulgaria and Foreign relations of Sudan. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and try to develop & if found undevelopable, then consider for deletion Has the nom followed WP:BEFORE, and even tried to look for sources in proper places? That material could be put in other articles is true of almost everything in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that Plumoyr/Groubani tries to look for something relevant before putting these things up in the first place? We both know the answer to that question. Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So two wrongs make a right? TheWilyFox (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that Plumoyr/Groubani tries to look for something relevant before putting these things up in the first place? We both know the answer to that question. Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this may have been a somewhat notable relationship during the Cold War, but the sources just aren't there to show that. Recreate if they turn up, but right now, the salient point (embassies) is covered at the relevant "diplomatic relations of..." articles. - Biruitorul Talk 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indications of notability, and there's no need to accuse the nominator of acting in bad faith either. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did someone accuse the nominator of bad faith? I missed that. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Assume good faith on the part of the editors.... Bulgaria was part of the Ottoman Empire a long while ago. Why delete it? It's perfectly good. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentlemen, as far as I can tell, everyone in this debate is assuming good faith and everyone is being civil. We're allowed to disagree with each other's arguments, as long as we do not insult each other personally. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The act of disagreement is not equal to a motion of active deletion. Please use the talk page of the article for discussion. By 'Assume good faith' I mean to say, assume that the article was created in good faith to begin with and should be allowed to exist. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentlemen, as far as I can tell, everyone in this debate is assuming good faith and everyone is being civil. We're allowed to disagree with each other's arguments, as long as we do not insult each other personally. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that has what to do with relations between the Republic of Sudan (independent since 1956) and Bulgaria (independent since 1908)? - Biruitorul Talk 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially since Sudan wasn't really part of the Ottoman Empire, if I remember right. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't say it was. The relationship does go back a long way, though. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially since Sudan wasn't really part of the Ottoman Empire, if I remember right. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that has what to do with relations between the Republic of Sudan (independent since 1956) and Bulgaria (independent since 1908)? - Biruitorul Talk 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability is easy to establish in the usual way Bulgaria, Sudan sign trade, investment agreements Diplomatic Dispatches - The Sudanese ambassador discusses relations between Bulgaria and the largest country in Africa Africa on the agenda Sudan: Foreign ministry official receives Bulgarian minister TheWilyFox (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Links 1 & 4 (which are the same) show merely that the two have normal trading relations - which is standard and unremarkable. Link 2 is a little iffy (being written by the mouthpiece of a genocidal government), but does point toward something. Link 3 is even better, talking about labour flows, trade, and the like. Also, there's mention of some relations under Communism, which is a plus (giving a historic perspective). However, given that Bulgaria's relations with Sudan aren't that substantial (even one medium-quality source doesn't fit the "multiple independent sources requirement) or that different from relations with Egypt, Tunisia, and so forth, would it not make much more sense to cover the material under an "Africa" subheading at Foreign relations of Bulgaria, or even in a separate Bulgaria-Africa relations article? This seems to me to be more sensible than chopping into little bits what is and has been a fairly uniform and fairly minor aspect of Bulgarian foreign policy. - Biruitorul Talk 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about Sudan's point of view? TheWilyFox (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At Foreign relations of Sudan, there's certainly scope for an "Eastern Bloc" section, with a short summary of what's been going on since 1989 (a momentous year not just in Eastern Europe, but also in Sudan). Russia–Sudan relations may have independent notability, but again, Sudan's relations with Bulgaria were not that different from its relations with Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia (not in the Eastern Bloc, but could be folded in as well), and so on. Some thousands of students, some technical advisers, some joint anti-Western posturing - that's about it. - Biruitorul Talk 18:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you want to discuss the same relationship from two different perspectives, which might work, but IMO one would still need a way to find both those other articles from the title "Bulgaria-Sudan relations". Also wherever the embassies are listed. TheWilyFox (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At Foreign relations of Sudan, there's certainly scope for an "Eastern Bloc" section, with a short summary of what's been going on since 1989 (a momentous year not just in Eastern Europe, but also in Sudan). Russia–Sudan relations may have independent notability, but again, Sudan's relations with Bulgaria were not that different from its relations with Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia (not in the Eastern Bloc, but could be folded in as well), and so on. Some thousands of students, some technical advisers, some joint anti-Western posturing - that's about it. - Biruitorul Talk 18:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about Sudan's point of view? TheWilyFox (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Embassies are at Diplomatic missions of Sudan and Diplomatic missions of Bulgaria; we have special lists of embassies that are (or should be) the first place one looks for such information. Regarding the impossibility of redirecting to both articles from one target: true, but that's not necessarily a fatal flaw. The important thing is that the information would ideally be in both articles, though not in identical form (strict duplication is bad), but rather (as you say) from both perspectives. Anyway, I guess this is a little on Sudan and the Eastern Bloc, and this is specifically about the USSR. Interestingly, although student exchanges went on for many years, Sudan was only actually oriented to the Communist bloc for two years, 1969-71. - Biruitorul Talk 21:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Links 1 & 4 (which are the same) show merely that the two have normal trading relations - which is standard and unremarkable. Link 2 is a little iffy (being written by the mouthpiece of a genocidal government), but does point toward something. Link 3 is even better, talking about labour flows, trade, and the like. Also, there's mention of some relations under Communism, which is a plus (giving a historic perspective). However, given that Bulgaria's relations with Sudan aren't that substantial (even one medium-quality source doesn't fit the "multiple independent sources requirement) or that different from relations with Egypt, Tunisia, and so forth, would it not make much more sense to cover the material under an "Africa" subheading at Foreign relations of Bulgaria, or even in a separate Bulgaria-Africa relations article? This seems to me to be more sensible than chopping into little bits what is and has been a fairly uniform and fairly minor aspect of Bulgarian foreign policy. - Biruitorul Talk 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nice work on that one, and more than we usually see. It's clear from the second and third sources Diplomatic Dispatches| Sudanese ambassador and Africa on the agenda that there has been a friendly relationship between Bulgaria and Sudan, dating back to the Iron Curtain days when Communist nations were seeking "solidarity" with African nations. Sudanese students got degrees from Bulgarian universities, Bulgarian experts helped with Sudan's agricultural and industrial development, etc.; to me, it shows that Sudan and Bulgaria have bilateral agreements on a number of fronts and have had them for decades. Mandsford (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In looking for other sources, Sudan reportedly made "secret" arms deal with Bulgaria and Bulgaria's export control of arms relaxed speak to Bulgaria supplying weaponry and military equipment to Sudan, and the problems that Bulgaria's arms exports have posed in its admission to the EU and to NATO. I think there's enough here, notwithstanding that nobody checked for actual relations when the article was first made at random. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - easily exceeds the standard set by WP:N, and I see no reason this article needs a higher irregular treatment. See [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC) WilyD 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I want to point out that User:TheWilyFox, who posted above, is a different person than my friend WilyD. The Fox activated an account three days ago, whereas WilyD has been a contributor since '05. The new guy may have meant well, but it's already causing confusion for the rest of us. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete trivial bilateral relationship; no source current in the article makes it notable, and I can find none elsewhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:17, 22 April 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.