398:(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).--
1018:
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
667:, 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.--
810:: 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?
453:: 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.--
364:
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!--
293:: 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.--
988:) 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.--
511:). 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
379:
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
1017:
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
543:
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
378:
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
581:
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
363:
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
1002:
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
837:
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
948:
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
474:
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
397:
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
502:
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
975:). 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 "
981:
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
838:
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.--
750:(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.
558:
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
202:
746:, 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
782:
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).
340:
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
431:
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.
237:, only some statements by politicians, and that does not warrant a standalone article. I stumbled upon this just like the Equatorial Guinea Kosovo relations article, this sounds equivalently silly. --
645:
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.
258:
691:
646:
620:
529:
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? --
1003:
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?" --
196:
953:? 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? --
326:) 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.--
768:
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?--
159:
270:
695:
650:
624:
266:
262:
132:
127:
136:
971:(funding and subsequent participation), multiple meetings which included public diplomacy, reactions by other stakeholders and historical Yugoslav involvement (
91:
119:
106:
979:". 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 (
743:
254:
984:). 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 (
470:: also, since there is concern over the article currently under discussion should we probably also nominate most of the other articles in the
1051:. The individual sources here are enough to indicate probably notability, but I'd want to see secondary sources about Palau Serbia relations
217:
345:
of this "collaboration", most obviously because it's not a secondary source nor is it independent from the article subject. Also please see
383:. If the preponderance of coverage is about practically nothing, there's practically no reason to have an encyclopedia article about it. --
184:
934:
471:
507:
enough, comes from several notable newspapers independent of the subject, nearly all are entirely dedicated to Serbia and Palau (i.e.
86:
79:
17:
512:
349:. In a globalized world, people write a lot of misguided encyclopedia articles and essentially waste volunteer time and effort. --
663:
many initiatives which may be routine for major powers are in fact very important. For example, newly independent states without
1076:
1035:
1012:
997:
962:
939:
901:
873:
847:
819:
792:
777:
759:
730:
699:
676:
654:
628:
591:
576:
553:
538:
524:
484:
462:
441:
407:
392:
373:
358:
335:
302:
282:
246:
178:
123:
61:
1023:
1019:
616:
319:
315:
310:: After expanding the article with further 18 references, many of which with in depth coverage I believe that comparison with
815:
323:
100:
96:
174:
973:
where there are most probably multiple primary and maybe some secondary sources still not digitalized or easily available
884:
710:
346:
311:
1093:
40:
747:
224:
163:
612:
115:
67:
1069:
811:
475:
interested in equal treatment of topics on which I worked/am interested in to any other topic in this category.--
638:
926:
314:
is inadequate one and probably even a false balanced approach. It would in fact be much more similar to the
190:
864:
is met, and the assertion that the article is only about Palau ceasing to recognize Kosovo is incorrect.
504:
1089:
36:
233:
This is another bilateral relations article that doesn't actually describe much of that - there is no
1060:
949:
relations, not multilateral relations? What is the significant coverage of Serbia-Palau relations in
437:
1056:
642:
564:
869:
210:
508:
428:
342:
234:
1031:
993:
921:
843:
788:
773:
755:
672:
587:
549:
480:
458:
403:
369:
331:
298:
807:
895:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1088:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
986:
and other sources were in fact indicated by other users, not this one which you selected here
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
57:
917:
913:
861:
687:
499:
433:
560:
806:: a lot of work has clearly gone into the article, but I think it's still fundamentally
945:
865:
520:
380:
1027:
1008:
989:
958:
950:
839:
784:
769:
751:
723:
668:
583:
572:
545:
534:
476:
454:
399:
388:
365:
354:
327:
294:
278:
242:
660:
153:
833:: sources should provide non-incidental coverage of the topic but the topic does
544:
is no reliable source stating it without other reliable sources challenging it.--
53:
664:
516:
1004:
954:
568:
530:
427:. Despite the commendable effort to expand the article, there just isn't
384:
350:
274:
238:
515:
should be given more consideration before jumping to 'delete' voting. –
582:
and Serbia in its different aspects and with different motivation.--
967:
If I may add to this technical information that it also deals with
1055:
before confidently declaring notability. Right now it's mostly "
1084:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
563:
and make a fresh article for each new press release :) This is
887:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
713:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
742:. It is clear that there is RS here on Palu-Serbia, such as
149:
145:
141:
209:
893:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
719:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
223:
1026:where pre-assumption would probably be opposite.--
951:https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381043
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1096:). No further edits should be made to this page.
253:Note: This discussion has been included in the
8:
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
977:both countries are members of NATO, EU etc
252:
1059:" sources rather than general coverage.
637:To add, I believe that the coverage is
692:2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4
647:2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4
621:2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
615:. In my opinion, this is a textbook
472:Template:Foreign relations of Palau
617:Knowledge (XXG):Overcategorization
312:Equatorial Guinea–Kosovo relations
24:
748:Pacific Islands-Serbia relations
611:per no significant coverage and
257:lists for the following topics:
92:Introduction to deletion process
1:
565:not supposed to be WikiNews
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1113:
1024:Moldova–Slovenia relations
1020:Latvia–Lithuania relations
659:In small countries of the
320:Abkhazia–Vanuatu relations
316:Georgia–Kiribati relations
1077:17:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
1036:16:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
1013:14:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
998:20:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
963:17:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
940:11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
902:10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
324:Abkhazia–Tuvalu relations
62:03:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
1086:Please do not modify it.
874:16:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
848:15:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
820:15:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
793:14:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
778:09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
760:09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
731:06:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
700:12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
677:08:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
655:04:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
629:04:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
592:14:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
577:09:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
554:20:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
539:18:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
525:12:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
513:underrepresented regions
485:07:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
463:06:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
442:04:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
408:09:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
393:09:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
374:07:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
359:07:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
336:08:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
303:19:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
283:18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
247:18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
164:edits since nomination
116:Palau–Serbia relations
68:Palau–Serbia relations
80:Articles for deletion
969:Our Ocean Conference
812:UndercoverClassicist
343:significant coverage
235:significant coverage
347:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
259:Bilateral relations
1075:
1057:as it's happening
904:
900:
733:
613:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
285:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
1104:
1072:
1067:
1065:
937:
929:
894:
892:
890:
888:
718:
716:
714:
686:based solely on
468:Comment (part 2)
308:Comment (part 2)
255:deletion sorting
228:
227:
213:
157:
139:
77:
52: leaning keep.
34:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1094:deletion review
1070:
1063:Thebiguglyalien
1061:
933:
925:
883:
881:
722:
709:
707:
639:WP:RUNOFTHEMILL
610:
170:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1110:
1108:
1099:
1098:
1080:
1079:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
907:
906:
891:
877:
876:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
823:
822:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
763:
762:
736:
735:
720:
717:
704:
703:
702:
684:Change to keep
681:
680:
679:
632:
631:
606:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
445:
444:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
287:
286:
231:
230:
167:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1109:
1097:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1073:
1066:
1064:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1047:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1001:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
978:
974:
970:
966:
965:
964:
960:
956:
952:
947:
943:
942:
941:
938:
936:
930:
928:
923:
922:SportingFlyer
919:
915:
912:
909:
908:
905:
903:
899:
898:
889:
886:
879:
878:
875:
871:
867:
863:
860:
857:
856:
849:
845:
841:
836:
832:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
801:
794:
790:
786:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
764:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
738:
737:
734:
732:
729:
728:
727:
715:
712:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
635:
634:
633:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
609:
605:
604:
593:
589:
585:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
557:
556:
555:
551:
547:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
501:
497:
494:
493:
486:
482:
478:
473:
469:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
447:
446:
443:
439:
435:
430:
426:
423:
422:
409:
405:
401:
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
382:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
236:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1085:
1083:
1062:
1052:
1048:
985:
980:
976:
972:
968:
932:
924:
916:applies and
910:
897:CycloneYoris
896:
882:
880:
858:
834:
830:
803:
739:
725:
724:
708:
706:
683:
661:Global South
607:
505:WP:SUSTAINED
495:
467:
450:
424:
318:(maybe even
307:
290:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
73:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
197:free images
1053:in general
665:hard power
643:WP:ROUTINE
434:Yilloslime
1090:talk page
1049:Weak keep
946:QuicoleJR
866:QuicoleJR
509:WP:SIGCOV
429:WP:SIGCOV
37:talk page
1092:or in a
1028:MirkoS18
990:MirkoS18
920:is met.
885:Relisted
840:MirkoS18
808:WP:SYNTH
785:Aszx5000
770:MirkoS18
752:Aszx5000
726:Rosguill
721:signed,
711:Relisted
669:MirkoS18
584:MirkoS18
546:MirkoS18
498:: meets
477:MirkoS18
455:MirkoS18
400:MirkoS18
366:MirkoS18
328:MirkoS18
295:MirkoS18
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
982:quality
831:Comment
740:Comment
451:Comment
291:Comment
271:Oceania
269:, and
203:WP refs
191:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
918:WP:GNG
914:WP:HEY
862:WP:GNG
804:Delete
688:WP:GNG
608:Delete
500:WP:HEY
425:Delete
267:Serbia
263:Kosovo
175:Google
137:delete
54:Daniel
561:WP:AT
218:JSTOR
179:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
1071:talk
1032:talk
1009:talk
994:talk
959:talk
911:Keep
870:talk
859:Keep
844:talk
816:talk
789:talk
774:talk
756:talk
744:here
696:talk
673:talk
651:talk
641:and
625:talk
588:talk
573:talk
567:. --
550:talk
535:talk
521:talk
517:Vipz
496:Keep
481:talk
459:talk
438:talk
404:talk
389:talk
381:WP:V
370:talk
355:talk
332:talk
299:talk
279:talk
243:talk
211:FENS
185:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
1022:or
1005:Joy
955:Joy
835:not
569:Joy
531:Joy
385:Joy
351:Joy
322:or
275:Joy
239:Joy
225:TWL
158:– (
1034:)
1011:)
996:)
961:)
872:)
846:)
818:)
791:)
776:)
758:)
698:)
690:.
675:)
653:)
627:)
619:.
590:)
575:)
552:)
537:)
523:)
483:)
461:)
440:)
406:)
391:)
372:)
357:)
334:)
301:)
281:)
273:.
265:,
261:,
245:)
205:)
162:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
1074:)
1068:(
1030:(
1007:(
992:(
957:(
944:@
935:C
931:·
927:T
868:(
842:(
814:(
787:(
772:(
754:(
694:(
671:(
649:(
623:(
586:(
571:(
548:(
533:(
519:(
479:(
457:(
436:(
402:(
387:(
368:(
353:(
330:(
297:(
277:(
241:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.