Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egypt–Kazakhstan 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.

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

)

These two countries have a relationship, but as established by plenty of recent AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay relations for example), bilateral relations are not inherently notable. The only additional claim of notability is that the Kazakh President visited Egypt, but a) world leaders love to travel; their trips don't automatically make for notable relations b) it's sourced to a propaganda organ. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:N through a distinct lack of coverage of anything other than a single presidential visit, which is more often a staged event while the real work of bilateral relations is done by junior ministers and bureaucrats. No notability of the topic asserted. Wholly insignificant on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  Notable in the usual way, see [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and so forth. WilyD 13:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Many of those are from propaganda organs, but if you'd like to try writing an article using the others, feel free to do so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no justification for referring to any of these as propoganda organs. "I would like to have this article deleted" is not a very compatible request with "feel free to expand this article before it's deleted". WilyD 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still don't think it's expandable into an actual article, but again, feel free to try - that often happens at AfD, when someone expands an article and turns the vote the other way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable relations. WilyD's "sources" don't work as they don't prove the relations are notable, but that a bunch of governmental officials are. Tavix |  Talk  13:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This claim is wildly at odds with
    WP:N, as many of the sources discuss Egypt-Kazakhstan relations directly, in terms of trade, talks, agreements, cultural exchanges, et cetera. It also certainly doesn't prove that any of the officials are, as they're mentioned incidentally in the context of the bilateral relations between Egypt and Kazakhstan. BLP makes it explicitly clear that in a case like this, you should cover the subject (the bilateral relations) and not the people (who are mentioned on in the context of the bilateral relations). WilyD 13:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete this non-notable bilateral relationship, whose notability is not established by any of the sources currently provided. That things can be proven to exist (that Kazakhstan and Egypt have officially recognized each other) should not be confused with a demonstration of notability.
  talk) 15:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, source #4 is very good, 1,2,3 and 5 certainly help too... #6 is the Financial Times/BBC, I'm puzzled why there is any debate here. Nerfari (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt you seem to misunderstand notabilty. Take #6 -- its a news brief that ran in the FT that noted that leader x went to country y. The bit was written by BBC monitoring which is a translation service -- probably picked up from radio in Egypt. No one disputes that the Kazakh president once went to egypt. Just that isn't notable.

talk) 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

What's your take on #4? Nerfari (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As WilyD's sources show, Nazarbayev and Mubarak met in 2007 and in 2008 and the two nations have been working on agreements on boring things like Kazakhstan exporting (yawn) grain to Egypt. There's enough evidence of an ongoing relationship to justify an article about the particulars. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not a fan of most of these "relations" articles, but the AL-AHRAM sources appear fine unless someone can show that they aren't independent. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  Islamic nations with many connections; state or top official visits from one nation to the other. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. Some significant trade, relative to the size of GDP. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Egypt, Template:Foreign relations of Kazakhstan, Category:Bilateral relations of Egypt, and Category:Bilateral relations of Kazakhstan 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)

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.