Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia-Vietnam 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. Clear keep - want to comment that this does not validate some of the comments made in favour of retention - but the ones on notability are significant Fritzpoll (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia-Vietnam relations

Yet another in a long line of stubs where no separate notability is shown for a minor diplomatic relationship that would justify a content fork from the relevant target articles (if there really is anything to be said beyond noting that a leader from country a once visited country b), i.e. Foreign relations of Mongolia and Foreign relations of Vietnam. The article as it stands does not have reliable sources, the prospects of finding substantial, third party coverage of this specific relationship (that would provide depth and information beyond "vietnam and mongolia are two countries that have cordial relations" etc... are vanishingly slim. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think forking this content into two separate articles is a great idea, but it's not a step which requires a deletion discussion, especially since it's incompatible with deletion. Hilary T (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no salvageable content here of any note. It is an attempted content fork from pre-existing articles (with no content, but whatever).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you are saying these Presidential visits should not be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. Hilary T (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't see. If there is something notable about these visits (remmember WP:NOTNEWS) then they should be mentioned in the relevant foreign relations articles. If they're not notable, then they're not. The place to take up that content question (if it has not already been addressed) is at the articles that already exist, not to create new, unsourced, time-wasting stubs on non-notable relationships.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tiny bilateral trade and a few presidential visits (and by the way, since 1980 the Vietnamese President has been a figurehead) amount to a relationship, but not a notable one. Fails WP:N (per numerous recent precedents), so delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find a number of articles about Mongolia-Vietnam relationships. Not sure if they're RS though. [tt_news=34057][1][2]. Computerjoe 's talk 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the material found there. I am not surprised-- given the rather difficult relationships of each country individually to the PRC, it should have been realized there would be a considerable amount of common interest. This is not a random pairing, unlike some of these articles. DGG (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article isn't hurting anyone, and does provide some encyclopedic information of value to the wikipedia. Just because its short, doesn't mean its not a valid article. That's why we have stub classes. Dream Focus 12:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability compared to any other two random countries. Presidential visits are routine and highly staged events. The amount of trade, in the grand scheme of economics, is trivial. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - repeated contacts between two Asian countries at the very highest levels of diplomatic protocol; relatively large trade; separated only by China; both formerly parts of the Chinese Empire. Whatever its previous stub status, it is now a good start. Per DGG, "not a random pairing." Bearian (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC) See also User:Bearian/Standards#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FX.E2.80.93Y_relations. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established in the usual way, I do not see a convincing argument that a highly irregular result is desireable here. See [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]Interesting to note that both the leaders of Vietnam and Mongolia feel that high level political meetings are an important part of their important relationship, I hope I will be forgiven for giving more creedence to their opinions that that of a couple Wikipedia accounts Wily D 14:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Mongolia, Template:Foreign relations of Vietnam, Category:Bilateral relations of Mongolia, and Category:Bilateral relations of Vietnam are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 03:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep I'd ditto Reinyday's comment about working out a general policy on "relations" articles and then applying it, rather than mucking about with individual Afd's - and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations is the obvious place to figure that out - not surprisingly it has been mentioned there once or twice.... There's certainly scope for a bit of "lumping" of some relations articles into a single article, but I'd have a pretty low threshold for forking out specific bilateral articles. I've done some work on the article, including a couple of refs from the FT which should keep people happy, the only thing someone else might like to do is sort out a map. Le Deluge (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFTER and notability shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTDIR for the most part. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 17 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.