Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Kazakhstan relations
Source: 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 merge to Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz talk 02:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia–Kazakhstan relations
- )
Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy
WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Keep - They are formerly part of the USSR. This article can be improved easily. --Turkish Flame ☎ 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they were both part of the USSR doesn't necessarily make their current relations notable. tempodivalse [☎] 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is ]
- Delete - that the two were part of the USSR is documented at Republics of the Soviet Union; nothing else seems to make theirs a notable relationship (which is unsurprising - the Baltics and Central Asia were as far apart as you could get in the USSR, and have little in common with one another). - Biruitorul Talk 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a search of google news archives turns up the kind of boring news stories you would expect to see about two former members of the Soviet Union, but nothing else. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. All In Order (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — ]
- Keep or re-direct and merge into talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Kazakhstan is a notable trading partner for Estonia, to the point that these two countries have seen it fit to establish a double taxation avoidance treaty. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this, the entire CIS minus Russia accounts for 2.5% of Estonian exports and 3% of imports, so Kazakhstan can't be that notable a partner. And that sort of agreement is a) thoroughly routine b) not really enough to build an article out of - if really notable, a list can be snuck into Economy of Estonia. - Biruitorul Talk 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not thoroughly routine; there are a number of countries that do not have such a treaty with Estonia. As a rule of thumb, double taxation avoidance treaties are done when there's a significant number of people who do business in both countries -- so existence of such a treaty is an indicator towards notability of the relations. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this, the entire CIS minus Russia accounts for 2.5% of Estonian exports and 3% of imports, so Kazakhstan can't be that notable a partner. And that sort of agreement is a) thoroughly routine b) not really enough to build an article out of - if really notable, a list can be snuck into Economy of Estonia. - Biruitorul Talk 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two problems with that line of reasoning. First, the fact that they have such a treaty is essentially trivia, and not something an article could ever be written about. Second, there's a WP:SYNTH issue here. Nowhere has anyone found a source specifically dealing with "Estonia-Kazakhstan relations"; rather, you have found a fact and decided it constitutes evidence of notable relations. That's not how this should work. - Biruitorul Talk 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two problems with that line of reasoning. First, the fact that they have such a treaty is essentially trivia, and not something an article could ever be written about. Second, there's a
- Delete As per the above, and per similar arguments I've made in other such AfDs. It may not be entirely random (though I wanna bet it started on a dare), but it's entirely non-notable, and complete overkill for an article that cannot in itself provide any relevant info. Whatever trivia could be added to the original stub only brings the article down,and underlines that it serves no real purpose. Dahn (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at talk) 04:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Digwuren. --Miacek (t) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability established for this relationship or establishable by me.talk) 20:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [1]. Given that some bilateral agreement exists, there is scope for future development. So even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time there is scope for future expansion, the existence of such a bi-lateral agreement should at least qualify that article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. The Estonian MFA indicates such a bilateral agreement exists or is in the precess of being drafted, so at the very least this article should be merged and a re-directed retained to talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [1]. Given that some bilateral agreement exists, there is scope for future development. So even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time there is scope for future expansion, the existence of such a bi-lateral agreement should at least qualify that article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. The Estonian MFA indicates such a bilateral agreement exists or is in the precess of being drafted, so at the very least this article should be merged and a re-directed retained to
Delete, implausible search term. Mergellus (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as All In Order. Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Dialogue 10:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Dialogue 10:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. This includes the double taxation agreement. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my standards - both were parts of the ]
- We do have an article on Republics of the Soviet Union if someone wants to know about their both being part of the USSR. And the fact that they have "some trade" (which as I showed, is pretty negligible overall) means nothing if its significance to this relationship is not corroborated by independent sources, which hasn't happened. - Biruitorul Talk 01:22, 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.