Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germany–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 keep. per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 14:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Tonga relations

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. There isn't much to these bilateral relations besides some minor historical interaction. The relations don't include things that typically make notable relations like state visits, significant trade/migration, embassies. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two sources are primary sources and the other source is user-generated and unreliable. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can be improved. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Foreign relations of Tonga. 2 of the 3 sources are primary and the other one looks unreliable. Nor is there really any content in the article, it merely notes that neither country has an embassy in the other before discussing the general history of imperialism in the Pacific in the 19th century (which is a bit of a coatrack). Tonga is a very small country on the other side of the world from Germany so this isn't very surprising. Hut 8.5 18:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in German language Wikipedia indicate some German language sources. My understanding is that in evaluation of notability we should only establish if there are sources in general and not if they are already included in article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have inserted some additional English language sources. I haven't checked if there are relevant sources in German or any other language. It seems to me that the outcome here should certainly not be straightforward deletion but that more appropriate consideration is if you want to keep stand alone article or transfer the content to another one. It seems to me that there might be some decent argument even for the first option, especially if someone is willing to identify some other sources and other languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added refs and details of the 1876 treaty of friendship. The TBC sources also look good. IdiotSavant (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Relevant and can be improved. I would wish for more generous inclusion policy for bilateral relation articles in Wikipedia.--Afus199620 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been improved and sources pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2022 (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.