Palau–Serbia relations: I stumbled upon this just like the Equatorial Guinea Kosovo relations article, this sounds equivalently silly.  -- Joy ( talk ) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Kosovo , Serbia ,  and Oceania .  Joy ( talk ) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It may seem silly at first to you but it seems to me the article is referencing issues further from the mere fact that some nominal formal relations exist.  The issues already addressed include bilateral state visit by Palau president to Serbia, potentially controversial issue of de-recognition of Kosovo as well as climate change effects on international relations. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 19:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (part 2) : After expanding the article with further 18 references, many of which with in depth coverage I believe that comparison with Equatorial Guinea–Kosovo relations is inadequate one and probably even a false balanced approach.  It would in fact be much more similar to the Georgia–Kiribati relations (maybe even Abkhazia–Vanuatu relations or Abkhazia–Tuvalu relations ) case showing how in a globalized world some important links and relations (based on specific interest) between far away peripheral and semi-peripheral countries may develop. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 08:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but saying that the countries "collaborate" through an embassy in Tokio is just adding to the meaninglessness of this article. A blurb on the ministry of foreign affairs website does not constitute significant coverage of this "collaboration", most obviously because it's not a secondary source nor is it independent from the article subject. Also please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . In a globalized world, people write a lot of misguided encyclopedia articles and essentially waste volunteer time and effort. -- Joy ( talk ) 07:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I understand that you may have a strong opinion that this is some silly and needless topic but once you stop laughing maybe take a look at other references in this article as well (the one you selected in no random way is obviously not independent but is neither stating anything controversial or analytical).  Some of them are in depth independent sources which should be evaluated without strong preconceptions.  That is all I expect and I believe people who get involved will be willing to do exactly that.  As for waste of time, nominating notable topics for deletion can also be interpreted as a waste of time and this topic looks notable to me.  But let the community decide.  Cheers! -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 07:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which ones are in depth?  Most of the reference section seems to be news coverage, at least I didn't notice much else.  I combed through and saw nspm.rs which sounded like it could be an in-depth journal, but the article linked is from their 'chronicle' section and it seems to basically repeat a short press release.  There's a handful of sources that are referenced more than once, an ABC article that quotes two academics from Macquarie University to explain, and an RTS article that seems to explicitly just carry a Tanjug wire article.  This isn't about preconceptions, it's about the spirit and letter of WP:V .  If the preponderance of coverage is about practically nothing, there's practically no reason to have an encyclopedia article about it.  -- Joy ( talk ) 09:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's about a small Pacific island nation with 4-5 embassies in total around the world which since 2018 managed to have two official heads of states meetings (Belgrade and New York), multiple high officials meetings (Belgrade, New York, Palau), clearly defined areas of interest in cooperation (climate, Kosovo), certain interest by USA and Russia in this relations, and bilateral agreements already signed or announced.  There is also some precedence with certain role Yugoslavia played in UN's decolonisation efforts.  All in all, this may be the best covered article on Palau's bilateral relations and I do believe that despite how small that state is their bilateral relations may be notable.  Also, each of this requires significantly larger efforts by Palauan diplomacy to achieve than it would for any major state so even some simple meeting is hardly business as usual.  Everything listed is properly referenced in multiple independent media sources (some of them with very sensationalist titles such as No smaller country no bigger friends) from Serbia and other countries.  There is obvious media interest in this specific relations due to its linkage to Kosovo issue.  It may seem to you equal to nonexistent relations between Kosovo and Equatorial Guinea but in reality it is not.  It is also very much different than some hypothetical Serbia–Tonga relations since in this case both sides showed clear commitment to their cooperation (I shall not say collaboration I guess). -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 09:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Despite the commendable effort to expand the article, there just isn't WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Yes the article cites some sources that mention state visits and the like, but there's nothing that actually covers the topic of Palau–Serbia relations in any sort of depth. Yilloslime ( talk ) 04:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : there are multiple independent sources which I quoted in the article doing exactly what. Some of them addressing explicitly the beginning of bilateral relations for example. Also, sources dealing with bilateral meetings between the two countries are certainly a part of the topic. I would recommend everyone else to take a look at the reference list before assuming that the statement above is correct.-- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 06:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (part 2) : also, since there is concern over the article currently under discussion should we probably also nominate most of the other articles in the Template:Foreign relations of Palau to check their inclusion?  I think it would be shame to delete them all but at least it would tell us something about our policies if that would be the result.  Personally, I would not like to do it myself at this time to avoid any disruption of the current procedure yet I am of course very much interested in equal treatment of topics on which I worked/am interested in to any other topic in this category. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 07:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : meets WP:HEY now, in my opinion.  I think it's reasonable that articles on bilateral relations consist mostly of news coverage because they are supposed to cover various events i.e. relations between the two countries.  Despite establishing relations four and a quarter years ago, news coverage seems WP:SUSTAINED enough, comes from several notable newspapers independent of the subject, nearly all are entirely dedicated to Serbia and Palau (i.e. WP:SIGCOV ).  5~6 of 28 references come from obvious primary sources (Ministry / National Assembly / The Office of the President / Socialist Party / UNESCO?) and I think that's not enough to discredit the entire article.  Which sources aren't reliable among the rest?  Palau seems to punch above its weight for what it is, and topics from underrepresented regions should be given more consideration before jumping to 'delete' voting.  – Vipz ( talk ) 12:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's not beat around the bush here - the topic area of "Serbia vs. Kosovo" is hardly an underrepresented one.  Does it warrant a 'bilateral relations' article for each of the offshoots?  -- Joy ( talk ) 18:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to beat around bushes, the importance of Kosovo in the initial development of those relations is explicitly stated (at least on Serbian side it was a primary motivation, doesn't seem like that on Palau's side). Saying that their relations are ONLY about Kosovo issue is original research if there is no reliable source stating it without other reliable sources challenging it.-- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 20:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But that's the thing - an encyclopedia needs to describe the real world.  What's happening in the real world is a bunch of politicians occasionally talking.  If our standard for reality is that, well, we might as well just give up on WP:AT and make a fresh article for each new press release :) This is not supposed to be WikiNews .  -- Joy ( talk ) 09:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know, maybe, but in this case we should split this article into multiple articles on 2-3 meetings, different policy areas, Yugoslavia in UN's body, shared initiative at UNESCO... but you are right, it may be too much.  What is bringing it all together that it is about relations between Palau and Serbia in its different aspects and with different motivation. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 14:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per no significant coverage and WP:INDISCRIMINATE . In my opinion, this is a textbook Wikipedia:Overcategorization . 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 04:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To add, I believe that the coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:ROUTINE since it is essentially inherited by country X being in the United Nations. Though I am hinging a little bit to change my vote since the updated sources do satisfy the basic notability guideline. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 04:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In small countries of the Global South many initiatives which may be routine for major powers are in fact very important. For example, newly independent states without hard power , use summitry and ceremonies as an important tool. This fact is widely recognised in relevant literature (I can attach some references if needed but everyone may just Google it). They may be in the same category but will nevertheless be events of different magnitude for parties involved (e.g. person in Iceland speaking Icelandic and person in Paraguay speaking Icelandic, both in the same category of Icelandic speakers but the second one may be more notable). State visit from Hungary to Serbia is therefore very unexceptional, but state visit from Palau is certainly not.-- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 08:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Change to keep based solely on WP:GNG .  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  It is clear that there is RS here on Palu-Serbia, such as here , but it seems like a 1-event (or topic) category.   Why don't we integrate these bilateral single-topic relations (which go back and forward over time, so they are strung out and are less like events), into a single article on Pacific Islands-Serbia relations (or other sensible groupings)?   I have sympathy that disparate articles with small countries over the same topic will be too hard to manage/keep updated.   Better to aggregate imho, or as time goes by, this article will fall into disrepair.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This proposal certainly does sound like an interesting idea.  It just honestly haven't crossed my mind so far.  Is it common to do it in this way and how appropriate it may be? -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it is a good idea to "aggregate" into more substantive topic areas if there is more "aggregate" RS on the topic; makes for a more stable article long-term (i.e. borderline cases have a habit of returning again to AfD).  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 14:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : a lot of work has clearly gone into the article, but I think it's still fundamentally WP:SYNTH : to stand as an article in its own right, it shouldn't be the only work in print or publication with its topic area.  There are lots of sources cited for individual aspects of the relationship between Palau and Serbia, but unless multiple reliable secondary sources have written on that relationship as a whole, I don't think we can have an article on it.  With that said, the proposal for an aggregated article may be able to clear that hurdle, if the sources exist.  Another option might be for a list article?  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 15:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : sources should provide non-incidental coverage of the topic but the topic does not have to be the primary subject of the source.  That being said, multiple quoted sources address the relationship in general, some even as a primary topic stated in the title (The beginning of relations between Palau and Serbia for example).  Aspects of bilateral relations are certainly part of the topic and better suited for this than for any other article.  Of course, the idea to consider other alternatives to deletion is interesting since this article certainly contains important encyclopedic information of interest for some readers. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 15:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:GNG is met, and the assertion that the article is only about Palau ceasing to recognize Kosovo is incorrect.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:HEY applies and WP:GNG is met.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ QuicoleJR it is technically true that the article no longer talk only about the diplomatic exchanges from 2018 and 2019 about Kosovo, it now has a paragraph about an event from 2022 at UNESCO, right?  It seems to describe something happening with eight other countries.  I thought these were about bilateral relations, not multilateral relations?  What is the significant coverage of Serbia-Palau relations in https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381043 ?  It's a 5 page PDF that mentions the word Serbia one time in the summary.  And how is this source independent of the subject, if these are member countries of the same organization?  -- Joy ( talk ) 17:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If I may add to this technical information that it also deals with Our Ocean Conference (funding and subsequent participation), multiple meetings which included public diplomacy, reactions by other stakeholders and historical Yugoslav involvement ( where there are most probably multiple primary and maybe some secondary sources still not digitalized or easily available ).  But sure, one of the sources in UNESCO's document jointly drafted and proposed as a common position by 10 countries two of which are Serbia and Palau- I don't see how it is not related to their bilateral relations, after all we often explicitly say something like " both countries are members of NATO, EU etc ".  It seems to me that there is nothing very controversial in the way this particular source was used, just as a source of some non-interpretative fact ( for example, it may be very different to use some institution's website to A) reference their address or B) state that they are leaders in the field--- and here, the fact that it is a common position of 10 countries at UNESCO may even provide additional RS quality ). If I am wrong the source maybe should be censored. But more importantly, my understanding is that some relevant number of sources must be RS ( and other sources were in fact indicated by other users, not this one which you selected here ) and that the fact that one or X number of other sources are maybe not up to that standard does not undermine those that are RS. Probably very often our sources are of different quality and we can't always ensure that all of them are A+ but as long as they are reliable and decent sources we may be in a position to work with them.-- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 20:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  The main issue does the volume and quality of these mentions strongly support the topic as an article, or is it just an assortment of mentions.  If an average English reader reads the article, are they going to conclude "ah, yes, these two nations engage in relations that I now understand", or are they going to conclude "wait, what? all that these two nations have done together is this, and I spent all this time clicking through references that were essentially clickbait?" -- Joy ( talk ) 14:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a fair point and my impression is that they will certainly have something to learn about this notable relation (even if they may be more about big ambitions which may not all materialise and motivated by some specific circumstances).  On the other hand my strong impression is that some average English reader will in fact probably have some strong pre-assumptions that there are probably no any notable relations between Palau and Serbia so if they are interested in foreign relations of each one of them may learn something counterintuitive and very useful they potentially didn't know before.  I think you had some similar pre-assumptions when initially you stated that Palau Serbia relations are equally silly to article on non-existent relations between Kosovo and Equatorial Guinea (now deleted) that actually simply stated that there are no relations.  Now you assume that it is all just about Kosovo (that is probably why you included this discussion into Kosovo deletion discussions section as well although I don't necessarily think it is totally related) but references clearly show that it is not despite strong initial importance of this case.  I think freeing ourselves from such pre-assumptions may help us evaluate this case in a better way.  Just imagine you have to evaluate article with similar engagements and references between let's say Latvia–Lithuania relations or Moldova–Slovenia relations where pre-assumption would probably be opposite. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 16:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  The individual sources here are enough to indicate probably notability, but I'd want to see secondary sources about Palau Serbia relations in general before confidently declaring notability.  Right now it's mostly " as it's happening " sources rather than general coverage.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:16, 15 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus