Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria–Cyprus 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   no consensus. BJ Talk 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Algeria–Cyprus relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. 2 minor agreements LibStar (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - random pairing with no content, created as part of a destructive spree. - Biruitorul Talk 05:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable intersection. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.
 * Weak keep - minor agreements, some bilateral and multilateral contacts; a case can be made to rescue this one. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOHARM for why that's an invalid argument. - Biruitorul Talk 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets and exceeds the standard of WP:N. I see no argument why this is a highly unusual article that merits a highly irregular treatment. [ +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  - one can of course dig up more, but this pretty clearly demonstrates that the article exceeds the standards of WP:N by an enormous margin. Wily D  12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that "cooperation agreements" mean anything (ie, meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG), or are you just taking random bits of news stories and attempting to create the impression of notability? And do you really think an article could be written out of that stuff? - Biruitorul Talk 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since anyone who has examined the facts will be forced to conclude the coverage is well beyond the "significant" standard of WP:N, I will suggest you review the sources before commenting on them. It's pretty clear one could write an article out of the sources I've cited, if they didn't have to spend all their time dealing with indiscriminate and spurious AFDs. Wily D  21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed them, and they're the usual trivia no one would think of including anywhere but in this nonsense series of articles. Once again: they do not cover the relationship, they cover what you deem to make up the relationship, which breaches WP:SYNTH. And no, an article could not be written about this, at least not one meeting the usual criteria, though you're free to prove me wrong whenever. - Biruitorul Talk 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per WilyD.  Sources have now been added showing the significant Algerian support for  Cyprus' unification, admittedly primary but there is a  central discussion about a possible new  guideline that might explicitly state these are sufficient to establish notability for a bilateral relationship.  Per Wiley's post above secondary sources are available as pay to view, and likely others could be found by those who speak Greek or Arabic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculating on a centralized discussion's outcome is not a valid retention argument, and primary sources fail, and will continue to fail, WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That I showed it exceeds the usual standard of WP:N is a valid argument, though, of course. Wily D 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The multiple reliable sources on relations between Cyprus and Algeria shown by WilyD demonstrate easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. And those are only English language.  There's probably much more in Arabic, Greek and Turkish. --Oakshade (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep When the leader of a nation talks about reuniting his country with another, I believe that makes the relationship of those two countries quite notable indeed. ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫   D r e a m Focus  01:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? All I can see in the "sources" is that Algeria supports Cypriot unification, which is hardly a controversial position - the UN Security Council has repeatedly asked for the same objective to be fulfilled. - Biruitorul Talk 05:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient sources exist to meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is good information that meets WP:N.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Ikip (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources cover individual events, not the topic as a whole, and show nothing of any significance on the world stage. Non-notable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A relationship that could significantly affect world prices for fossil fuels, is clearly notable.  D r e a m Focus  03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a rough expansion to include content from the sources that User:WilyD identified. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 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.