Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia–Norway relations

Mongolia–Norway relations

Mongolia–Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

noting the current references are all from Norwegian government or royal websites so not totally independent of the subject. there appears to be little to this relationship besides a few visits. the level of mongolian migration is minute, only 20 norwegians in Mongolia. no agreements, no known levels of trade, no embassies. yes there is development assistance but so do many Western countries. the level of development assistance in 2007 is less than USD1 million so not high either. a general lack of coverage of these relations except a few visits. gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral - I can't see any specific guideline this violates. It passes WP:V. Does WP:N apply for bilateral relations ? Claritas (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:N applies for all articles, unless specific criteria exists like WP:BIO for people. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Strong delete—two visits, in one direction, years apart, from a second-rate politician do not qualify this relationship as notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 07:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As per my recent close of a similar discussion, I'd like to remind all participants to remain civil and refrain from assumptions of bad faith or personal attacks. Let's see if this one can't be a bit less acrimonious, hm? Shimeru (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - In my book, a relationship between two countries who don't have embassies in the other country (as is the case here - Mongolia's is in Belgium whilst Norway's is in China) can't really be described as notable - unless there's some special reason why its like that (as in the case of France and North Korea). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete What Jess says. They seem to be barely acknowledging each other. The Pebble Dare (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As per sources diplomatic relationships have been intensifying in recent years. Development work sponsored by Norway is helping Mongolia to develop the infrastructure to exploit and trade her rich resources. Its possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys. Dont seen any benefit from deleting this growing relationship. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  do you have reliable sources to back the claim "Its possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys." yes it is possible but it's WP:CRYSTAL balling the relationship. It's also possible that these resources may not be highly needed by Norway's industries. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  Come off it, Feyd. Its [sic] possible extractable rare earths will be found to rival inner Mongolia, which Norway needs for her high tech industrys [sic] – is this desperate three-way flouting of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR and WP:V really the best you can do? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  You and LibStar are right TreasuryTag, my argument was a little strained as there was only one independent source at the time and i couldnt find another. Im glad the squad has been able to find a second to improve the notability. As to what more can be done, watch this space, all I'll say for now is Im going to make you famous :-). FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Im going to make you famous :-) – would you mind clarifying, please? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

With pleasure. A centralised discussion has been opened to see if there is consensus for a special guideline that will help secure the survival of these articles, and which may save spare us the unpleasantness that sometimes break out in these debates. Your name is up in lights, I hope deletionists such as SnottyWong continue to find your words persuasive! PS - please let them know that us inclusionists arent fierce, we're gentle as lambs unless we're attacked! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Norway sent people officially to Mongolia, and have given them funding, and worked with them on various projects. They thus have a relationship. Dream Focus 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  I was born, I am registered to vote in the United Kingdom, therefore I exist. Do I qualify for an article now? No. Norway and Mongolia have interacted, therefore their relations "exist" – does that mean they automatically qualify for an article? No. What do you think the notability policy is for, if mere existence is the only required threshold? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  The difference is that the BBC doesn't monitor and report on TreasuryTag. If they did in enough detail we would have an article on him, so long as he is known for more than one event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  The BBC didn't monitor and report on this. A particular Mongolian news agency did [1] [2] – ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  yes they have a relationship but whether or not it passes the bar for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  There is no bar. They have a relationship, and it gets news media coverage. All requirements for a Wikipedia article are met. Dream Focus 07:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  then this should pass through with passing colors as all keep. simply having coverage does not guarantee an article. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Shouldn't the information be retained somewhere (at least where the embassies are and the date relations were established). Marge to Foreign relations of Norway and Foreign relations of Mongolia, perhaps? Buddy431 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, a few visits and some aid, but not a notable relation yet. Has received little attention in Norwegian public sphere, for one. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete the "relations" amount to an occational politician going to the other country, the only non-government reference is a short article on a minor political visit. The countries don't even maintain embassies with each other. Level of coverage and development of relations isn't sufficient to justify an article. Hut 8.5 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and work to expand It has good references indicating notability, it just needs more information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Whatever insufficiencies there are in the article, the topic meets WP notability guidelines per se, in my estimation, and the way articles are created on WP is that raw early incarnations are improved and expanded over time. We all waste far too much time debating and redebating bilateral relations articles. There is plenty of garbage than needs to be cleaned up coming through the gates on WP every day. Deletionists should not obsess on articles like this, for which consensus to delete is highly unlikely no matter how many times the AfD pleas are made. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per TreasuryTag. Clearly not notable. There have been a lot of these types of random bilateral relations articles lately that have ended up at AfD and are being fiercely defended by the inclusionists. Perhaps we should think about creating specific inclusion guidelines for bilateral relations articles? After all, out of 195 countries, there are 18,915 2-country combinations. Are all of these 18,915 combinations deserving of an article? SnottyWong talk 16:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Well, why not? Since when we have a number limit on pages? --Cyclopia^talk 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Quite! Shall we make a page on each of my toes as well? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  I doubt your toes have been covered by BBC , by national government sources or by any other reliable source. You're not good at sarcasm, Treasury: you always miss the point. --Cyclopia^talk 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  The BBC haven't reported on this...! See my comment above. Nor have they reported on every permutation of bilateral relations, which is what you were referring to. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  So it's a Mongolian news agency. Ok. What's the difference? Do news agencies talk about your toes? --Cyclopia^talk 19:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  A)The difference is that bandying around 'the BBC' as if it's a deity—a point of view I do tend to sympathise with, but still...—is wrong, if untrue. B)There are combinations of countries about whose relationships no news agency has written. Just like my toes. So they don't get articles, WP:PAPER or WP:NOTPAPER. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  <sarcasm>Personally, I think that anybody who thinks Vanuatu–Ecuador relations isn't a notable topic is a troll and a vandal who is ignorant and just wants to censor important facts from Wikipedia and I will be writing to the press, and Jimbo Wales, and I will be suing you all for infringing my freedom of speech if you argue that Vanuatu–Ecuador relations isn't notable.</sarcasm> (Yes, I agree with you 100%, SnottyWong!) ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Be careful around TT when he starts in the sarcasm mode, remember I had over 300 images I loaded to Wikipedia and Wiki Commons nominated for deletion as retaliation last time he went into the sarcasm mode. He spent hours meticulously nominating every image I loaded in Wiki Commons and even my photo of myself on my user page. He even nominated a picture of some random guy that I adjusted the color of and reloaded. I guess he nominated everything that my name was attached to. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yet we have Foreign relations of Vanuatu, if there was enough information, each pair would get their own article, but there isn't enough information for a standalone article for each pair. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  And there isn't enough information for the pair this discussion is about, in my opinion, and in the opinions of the several others who would also like to see it deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Troll and vandal no. But ignorant and that just wants to make the encyclopedia poorer by making important facts difficult to find for the public, yes, agree. Without sarcasm. --Cyclopia^talk 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  So everyone who's arguing for a select few bilateral relations articles to be deleted are "ignorant and that just [want] to make the encyclopedia poorer" – I didn't notice the consensus to waive WP:NPA on this page, but whatever floats your boat... ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  You started by making quite silly sarcasm against the keep opinions. Don't complain if it gets back at you . No personal attack meant but yes, I happen to think that who wants do delete bilateral articles is ignorant in the technical meaning of the term: he/she ignores that it is a completely encyclopedic topic and that we are not here to follow notability guidelines for the guidelines's sake, but we are here to inform the public on verifiable and important subjects. The notability guidelines are here to avoid having us to cover obviously non-notable subjects like your next MySpace garage band, not to became an excuse to exclude whatever sounds a bit odd. The status of relationships between two sovereign countries strikes me as an obviously notable subject for an encyclopedia, something that oughts to be covered whenever we have some RS to draw information about, even in cases where the relationship is not an obviously fundamental ones: like we cover small towns and not only big cities, rare odd species and not only zoo animals, etc. He/she is ignorant in having a small-world perspective, in which what is "notable" misleadingly is interpreted as "everyone knows it". And even worse, they want to make other people ignorant, in removing information. This definition fits well enough: people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come. (see [3]). --Cyclopia^talk 18:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. There is a definite case for notability, due to media coverage from BBC and Norwegian news sources, reported in the article. The articles Reciprocal visits between high representative of states mean the relationship is not trivial. A consulate has been recently opened [4]. Article is definitely encyclopedic, providing a structured compendium of notable and verifiable information. Given the reasons above, I see no benefit for the encyclopedia in deleting this article. --Cyclopia^talk 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)