Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia 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 delete. MBisanz talk 02:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Mongolia relations[edit]

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

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. a very insignificant relationship In 2006, Mongolia was Estonia’s 134th trade partner (53, 000 EUR) and 125th export partner. For the second year in a row, there were no imports from Mongolia to Estonia. !! LibStar (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, official visits by heads of state are routine and highly staged events. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts DGG (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - good comic relief perhaps, but little actual notability to the "relationship" demonstrated. - Biruitorul Talk 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 08:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. If relations between these two countries are not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Come on guys, let's not be parochial. Much more important than Canada – United States relations to the people that live in these countries, just a bit less content available in English. I added some material with refs from a very quick search, and am sure there is much more out there. Too much to be a sub-entry in Foreign relations of Estonia or Foreign relations of Mongolia, and which would it fall under? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While there is little trade between Mongolia and Estonia, there's significant cultural exchange -- both now and during the last century. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the expansion contains nothing unremarkable for this kind of relationship, and fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Canvasback (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as JustOneMoreQuestion. Uncle G (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Documenting nothing. And no, no "parochialism" here: I don't think anyone is opposing the aricle on grounds that it's "not American" (neither am I!), though I knew that the very principles on which the "X-Y relations" articles, American or whatever, were tolerated would come back to bite all of us in the ass. personally, i feel that all these articles are ill-conceived (I have said this before), but in this case, and in many others, no matter what the principle, we're simply dealing with nonsense. Dahn (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not nonsense - reliable independent sources attest to the fact that Mongolia and Estonia have relations, which may go a long way back. They are talking about strengthening economic and cultural ties - unusual maybe, but a good thing. Surely this article will grow as interested editors add detail. There are many reliable independent sources - that is enough for me. More important than some punk rock group from Halifax. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What those reliable independent sources "attest" is something which an editor has chosen to interpret as relevant for the article, not something relevant in itself. For one, we have the utterly non-encyclopedic info about visits (significant only because the editor who wanted to find something on the relationship attributed them significance) which, btw, are not attested by independent sources, they come to us as passing mentions from the parties involved - the government, the NGO participating in bilateral meetings, the Mongolian News Agency. Aside from these, we have the info about Von Sternberg, which has nothing to do with Estonia, and very little to do with Mongolia. And just how "far back" can these "relations" reach, with Estonia having had two terms of independence, interwar and post-1991, and Mongolia having dropped its puppet state status in 1991? To add: the frankly atrocious manner in which the article is written (see what the WP:MOS has to say about linking, capitalization, punctuation and other things) attests to the haste in "rescuing" this article, which, in this case, as in several others, only bundles up trivia. So, yes, the article is nonsense. And who, pray tell, is discussing punk rock groups from Halifax? Dahn (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not WP:SYNTH. That principle is that editors should not string together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. An example would be: "A said the USA stands for freedom. B says the Tamil Tigers are seeking freedom. Therefore the USA supports the Tamil Tigers". Obviously this is unacceptable. The "puff" or "diplospeak" in the article supports the fact that there are indeed relations between the two countries, and tells something about these relations. As one would expect, they are not very intense. But the article is clearly factual, backed up by various solid sources. Is the subject important? See WP:BIAS. It may be quite important to the people of Mongolia. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It may be quite important to the people of mongolia?" I strongly doubt that, but of course my opinion is worth as much as yours in this case (zero). Do you have reliable sources on how important this is to the people of mongolia? Alrighty then.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you were a Bandy fanatic, you might have a different point of view. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but since when are we creating articles to keep users with a certain POV content?! Dahn (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just meant that if there are a lot of Estonians and Mongolians who are passionately interested in Bandy, like a lot of Canadians and Americans are interested in Ice Hockey, they could be interested in the relations between their two countries. English is sort of the global language these days, so they might look in the English Wikipedia to find out. It is plausible to think that people in these two ex-Soviet satellite states may have some interest in each other. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take that back. In the Bandy World Championship 2007, Mongolia was trashed by Estonia 5-0. My guess is that the Mongolians don't want to hear anything more about Estonia right now. Could be wrong - I don't know what is happening in the playoffs this year. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Estonia was not a satellite state, it was *in* the Soviet Union. My question still stands, but let me rephrase it for clarity: since when are we creating and keeping articles because people may be passionately interested in something that may be said to relate to the object of their passion? Wikipedia does not structure itself around POVs, does it? As for the (otherwise valid) observations about the status of English, let me note again that you are discussing this with me, a Romanian in Romania, and that I have already answered about what works and what doesn't work in that argument. Let me repeat my points: writing on obscure but contextually notable subjects (which we have both admittedly done) is not the same as compiling trivia to create a topic which may not exist at all; we already have equivalent coverage of even the more minor topics in Mongolian contexts, so this is certainly not an issue of bias. Let me add a relevant fact: as a Romanian who has contributed countless articles on Romania, I obviously want to improve coverage of my country, but I have a realistic expectation that this will not, could not and should not even try to reach a level comparable to America's or Britain's. No matter how you stretch it, something will not necessarily apply to Romania just because it applies to the US. I can't ignore the simple facts that we are a comparatively small culture/society with a total number of people you could fit into NYC, that we speak an insular language, that we were not patrons of anything resembling Hollywood (or even Bollywood). In these terms, I can accept that Romania's relationship with its neighbor Bulgaria may factually not as important as the US' relationship with Nicaragua (not the same stakes, logistics or global doctrines involved). Working my way down from that, I'm certain that Romania's relations with Mongolia/Estonia/Cambodia will be as worthy a separate article as is the US' relations with, say, Andorra. Mutatis mutandis. Dahn (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if I have been in any way offensive. I am so used to finding editors who think that "foreign stuff" is unimportant, I suppose I throw in WP:BIAS almost as a reflex when I seem to detect the argument that this cannot be important because it is about a pair of trivial little countries. My people come from a small country too. At risk of repeating, I prefer to be as non-judgmental on the value of articles as possible. Everyone has different viewpoints on what matters and what does not. Deleting an article on the basis that "I don't think this is important" seems totally wrong to me. If an article is coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information, I think it should stay - and that is almost always the consensus in an AfD discussion like this. Not always. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should clarify this: aside from the reservations I have toward the "bilateral relations" system in general (if anything, because it created a problem where there was none), I had and will have the same objections to articles compiled from similar trivia and involving any of the "major players" (US, UK, France, Russia, whatnot) or countries "in-between" (from Romania to Chile, passing through Libya). If the articles in question only cover a vacuum, they are not around for any reason. Of course, that would primarily (always?) apply to articles where the other term is a [comparatively] minor country, so the "systemic bias" argument could be resurrected as a twist in the plot in just about any case. Regardless, "bias" is not the real issue, whatever the X and Y.
I take no offense at any of your comments, and did not want to come across as such. In fact, given the precedents, I would even expect the comments I made about my own country to be taken as offensive by some of the less realistic of my compatriots - but they are nonetheless accurate. The awareness of these truths certainly does not make me bitter. In terms of absolute importance, Romania does not rank below other countries because of subjective issues ("Americanocentrism", "Anglocentrism", "Francocentrism" etc. - however relevant these may actually be in general). It does so because of objective, easily determinable, issues. Here's a couple: the population of the US is 14 times that of Romania; while Britain was already home to a railway network, published the most trusted newspapers, and owned an empire upon which the sun never set, Romania was starting to consider building its first railway, adopting the Latin alphabet and a literary language, and finding a powerful patron to finance its emancipation from an empire; throughout the 19th century, qualifying as a schoolteacher in France would ensure you a lifetime of cultural prominence in Bucharest. Given that I wouldn't consider a relationship between US/UK/France and X state inherently notable, what is left to say about Romania, or Mongolia? Let's not delude ourselves. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add: whatever anyone of us says can be transformed into "I do/don't think this is important", and therefore be seen as subjective. That said, I do believe I and others have presented arguments as to why it is unimportant, and, what's more impractical, ill-conceived, and against wikipedia's nature (every part of "coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information" has been challenged, not to say refuted, by now). It's always assumed that none of us has access to an absolute truth, but that doesn't mean it's all in the eye of the beholder. And, even if it did, it still doesn't mean that the article discussed with such arguments should be kept because it has had a beholder. Furthermore, once expressed, that attitude would primarily endorse the notion that any article (existing or conceivable) should be kept by default. After all, who's to say what article is "coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information" - using the "viewpoints" argument you referred to, it too is a matter of opinion. Dahn (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a synthesis in the sense that it strings together various stuff (the last two paragraphs also having nothing to do with Mongolia and Estonia as such, and already covered in more appropriate venues) and concludes "notable relationship!" But that's not how it works. We don't take Presidential visit + ambassadorial consultation + e-governance experts' visit and deduce from that "notable relationship". Putting aside that that is trivia and news that we would never, ever be covering here if this series of nonsense articles hadn't been created and editors now felt the need to fill them in, it also constitutes a synthesis, given the lack of sources about the relationship as such. - Biruitorul Talk 01:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I note how those sources are no longer "independent", but are now "solid" - even though they are entirely primary. WP:SYNTH applies to the measure where these articles don't discuss anything other than courtesies exchanged, and outline basic activities for which they are payed; no commentary on these notions exists in secondary sources, the editor who used them simply tried to replace that void with info that asserts no relevancy, and attributed it a personal relevancy. Why? Simply because it was believed that editors who objected to this article say "it can't be done" (as opposed to "it shouldn't be attempted"). For the third time: trivia + trivia does not make notable.
And the WP:BIAS claim (btw, why are we finding that relevant what other editors in some project perceive as a flaw?): adding trivia on Mongolia is equivalent to adding trivia on the US, and neither should eventually be spared "the scissors". If we are talking about notability, lack of coverage and weird dynamics, let me note this and that - I'd say we're beyond "bias" claims now. Yes, Mongolia will get less coverage than many other countries. For quite valid reasons, such as it being an underdeveloped country, and - with only a fraction of the media and academia other countries can afford - producing less coverage of its own stuff at home. But, regardless, we already have reasonable coverage of even its pop scene. As for the expectation that a Mongolian internet user would visit this article and this article over all, needing this exact piece of trivia, puh-lease. Let alone the ridiculousness of probabilities invoked, but it's quite clear that wikipedia should not even begin to strive to create articles around specific needs, otherwise we'd have articles on any potential subject for any potential high school paper, we'd start including DIY guides, etc. In other words, we'd be discarding WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"What started the article" is not relevant, or "I am not interested". I prefer to stick to the criterion that the content is backed up by multiple reliable sources. They attest to the fact that there are relations and give some information. Boring maybe, but "I think this is boring" is not a criterion for deletion. Look at all the trivial articles in Wikipedia - maybe someone is interested in Balmaclellan - beats me who. Are the sources reliable? Well, maybe the government of Estonia is lying when they announce a visit by the president of Mongolia, and maybe the government of Mongolia is lying when they say their ambassador presented his credentials to the Estonians. I am inclined to believe that in this case the sources, although primary, are reliable. Perhaps an editor who spoke Estonian and/or Mongolian could dig up newspaper sources. (I deleted the last two paragraphs - agree they are distractions.) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are fairly trivial (or at least routine) news stories that would never feature here were editors not now feeling compelled to "fill in" details, and say nothing about Estonia–Mongolia relations as such, but rather bring together trivia that editors - not reliable secondary sources - have decided constitute evidence of a notable relationship. And by the way, you do realise that ambassadors present credentials every week of every year, right? - Biruitorul Talk 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Nobody has claimed this article is not worthy because it's "boring" (it's not, I for one find it rather amusing), but that it's trivial (meaning that the factoids it contains are not up to the standards). Speculating about the possibility of more random newspaper articles (on what?) only highlights the idea that this article cannot possibly go anywhere. And no, the primary sources are not worthless because they may be false, but because they don't actually establish notability. It's like citing Jesus to establish why Christianity is important. Dahn (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about citing the Pope on why Jesus is important? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a hugemongous article such as Christianity/Jesus, once you're done with all the reliable third-party sources, you could of course cite the pope somewhere if you really think it adds anything relevant, with what the pope says. You'd have by then established notability. However, even in that unlikely scenario, I'd think you'd want to avoid the whole issue, since it would also be a good idea to cite the leaders of all other major branches (just to be on par), and since everyone of those branches has expressed its doctrine in a corpus of works far greater than the pope's press releases (not to mention itself discussed to death in academia). But let's assume Christianity was a cult whose importance is not immediately apparent, and Jesus its prophet. Would you establish their notability by relying on quotes from the cult leader? Dahn (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure deeming that opinion "fundamentalist" when the issue has not been "decided" there is okay... Dahn (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, what do you expect? This is Wikipedia. It views notability through the teen POV, and teenagers never were into international relations. But soon they'll lose interest and go after obscure cartoon characters from a bygone era instead. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what all of us voting oppose have been doing, me especially...
(And I can't help but notice: this argument about irrelevant subjects being prioritized over serious content is brought up here, in a discussion about an article relying on primary sources about a couple of visits which no one in Mongolia or Estonia is likely to honestly have remembered for some reason. Now that "teen POV" is mentioned, let's note how bandy games and what Mongolian people may find interesting for no apparent reason were brought up as arguments in favor of keeping the article...) Dahn (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Miacek (t) 11:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC). Digwuren has explained this humorously and yet very well above. --Miacek (t) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
above should be disregarded as per WP:JUSTAVOTE— Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I have expanded the article a bit. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming surreal. What you added is yet more clutter about Estonian being related to Mongolian and about two teams facing each other in the game of bandy (with the mention "which is similar to hockey"!), neither of which has anything whatsoever in common with the conceivable topic (see WP:COATRACK). I'd picture this sort of editing to save a topic is in itself a reason not to keep this article. Dahn (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pattern with these uncalled-for "expansions". See Canada–Haiti relations: "here's a thumbnail sketch of Haitian history for you! And by the way, the Queen's representative in Canada comes from Haiti, not that her biography and the article on Haitian Canadians don't mention it already, but hey, we have nothing else to say, so why not mention it again?" - Biruitorul Talk 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The basis for this article is the usage of non-academic sources belonging to the Estonian government. Non-resident ambassadors. Presentation of credentials of ambassadors is a routine thing in diplomacy. --Russavia Dialogue 00:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Aymatth2 and Marting have done a fine job of digging up interesting facts about this relationship, well supported by citations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to look like a coterie voting blindly. Aside from the one visit, which I understand you would assume is inherently notable (even if it is not covered by independent sources, contrary to what WP:GNG, WP:PSTS and WP:NOT require), what "facts" would those be, FeydHuxtable? The lack of an embassy on location? The minuscule trade? The glaringly non-notable info about a game of bandy? The info about Von Sternberg, which Aymatth himself deleted before it was reintroduced from a primary source, and which, outside of that primary source, is not mentioned in connection to Estonia? Let me remind you that we are not here to discuss whether those facts are interesting, but whether they are encyclopedic. Dahn (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, btw, for all you editors out there who are ready to assume that such sourcing helps the subject achieve more notability. If you think that the (distant) relationship between the Mongolian language and Estonian is a relevant detail and establishes something, consider what a similar level of detail would mean for any article on any two countries were Indo-European or Semitic languages are official. (And do take some time to read the corresponding edit summary...) If you think it's cool that the article mentions a face-off in bandy, have the good sense to consider what it would mean for the corresponding Canada-US or France-UK articles to mention all the similar confrontations in hockey, football and whatever other sport. If you think mentioning Von Sternberg adds anything relevant, imagine what it would mean if a Canada-US article would reserve space to detail the achievements of any Canadian-born American and American-born Canadian. Btw, judging by the article on him, Von Sternberg wasn't even a Baltic German per se, since he was born in Austria! In other words, this sort of absurdity is biased in favor of minuscule relevancy, and favors trivia in articles where there's really not much to say. It is therefore a clear violation of WP:NOT. I have already confronted FeydHuxtable with this on the centralized discussion page, but, you see, he can't hear me.
I hear you loud and clear Dahn. You’ve made a strong case that the keep votes for some of these bilateral relations articles aren’t consistent with existing guidelines. I’ve agreed you’re right. Where we differ is you and your supporters seem to want to maintain the status quo (or possibly have guidelines amended to make deletion of borderline articles even more clear cut) , whereas I and others would like an amendment to more tightly define the criteria that would establish notability for these relationships. This would be similar to the existing specific guidelines for music or academics – which allow notability to be established for reasons that wouldn’t be accepted by a strict reading of general policy. With a change the community can keep articles that many clearly want while staying with in guidelines and also provide useful topics for our audience. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you still can't hear me, since the above in no way answers the points I raised, but outline an idea which has nothing to with the relevancy of the info. And if you want a special guideline to say that sport events or other such trivia count as relations between states (do you, or are you just speculating?), and hold this article accountable to a non-existing guideline, your vote is nothing more than one of these. So is your circular argument about "borderline articles", which is being fed by your perception that such info is relevant. Dahn (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sporting encounters can be significant in the early stages of an international relationship. There are several studies that suggest sport can effective in developing relationships between nations, and in easing tensions between ethnic groups within a nation. Now your comparison with England / France seems strong at first glance, but consider how in the early stages of a relationship certain actions are immensely notable, whereas in a mature relationship they are not. Considering a human relationship might help, lets take the courtship between Elizabeth I and one of her Spanish suitors. Now these never even got as far as a first kiss as far as Im aware – but say it did that single kiss would have been immensely notable!! Not just as Beth was very notable in her own right, but it would have signalled much better prospects for the whole England – Spain relationship at the time. The Spanish Armada might never have happened! Whereas with any couple once they've been together for a while, a single kiss or even a mad all night session isnt likely to be all that noteable, no matter how significant the couple. Back to the matter at the hand, the world is now in a unique epoch where just about every nation is reaching out to every other – a hundred years back many either didn’t exist or only had formal relations with their immediate neighbors and the great powers. These fledgling relationships are significant because they have a bearing on international trade, cultural exchange , collaboration at international summits etc. So yes sporting events can sometimes be most notable, belong in articles , and yes Id ideally like that stated in a guideline. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH. I'm obviously not asking you about the "sometimes" when such a sporting event etc. is mentioned in a work dealing with international relations, I'm asking you about editorializing events whose notability is not established by outside sources, but by editors. I. e.: this case. So, back to my original question.
In this particular case, my guess would be youre probably right the game of brandy might well be trivial. But that’s just speculation on my part , very possibly the editor who added that knows a lot more about the Estonia Mongolia relationship than me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the "unique epoch etc." theory - WP:NOT. You see, even if I'd want to be interested in this sort of speculation, several sections of that policy tell me that I shouldn't. Dahn (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If I weren't more interested in WP:POINT than these users are, I'd remove all such "interesting" ad lib detail and leave you to ponder the bare article; see if the remainder phrase or two on something sourced on primary material is worth keeping on what strives to be an encyclopedia. Dahn (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul Talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out amore appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be surprised if you could actually show sources meeting WP:GNG here. And that's the crux of the matter - not the uplifting "let's all wait until the working group reports back" rhetoric. - Biruitorul Talk 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of good sources, past colonies of USSR, relatively large trade, ongoing high-level contacts, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now let's see you provide some of those "plenty of good sources". Dahn (talk) 01:19, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estonia–Mongolia_relations&oldid=1089933540"