Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Denmark relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. If one disregards the many invalid comments, such as those that simply refer to the previous discussion or that assert "it's notable" or "it's not notable", or similar, we are left with a very few valid opinions: those that directly address and evaluate the number and quality of the sources used in this article. And these few opinions don't agree with each other, so it's a no consensus outcome again.  Sandstein  08:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Denmark relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

my previous nomination stands, previous arguments claimed AfD nomination happened too soon after article creation well 5 months down the track, 3 of the 5 sources merely confirm Azerbaijan has a non resident embassy in London. neither has country has embassies, no known agreements. current article mentions one state visit but I can't find anything else. those wanting to barrel scrape the President of Azerbaijan sent a letter to the Queen of Denmark wishing her a happy birthday and Azerbaijan buys ink-jet scanners from Denmark for election. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't seem to make it display, but here's the previous discussion. Mandsford 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just fixed the link (it didn't work because it was an external hyperlink formatted as a wikilink). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The consulate of Denmark in Baku appears to be an Honorary Consulate (see dkconsulate.az ) but has passport issuing facilities, which seems a bit odd for an hon con. Possibly acts as a post box for applications considered elsewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep again Its only been a few months, so the same guy shouldn't be nominating it again simply because he didn't get his way the first time around. Seven said keep last time, one merge, and two agreed with you to delete it.  The arguments made last time for keeping it, are still valid now. .   D r e a m Focus  21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confess 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete again - Result of the previous AfD was no consensus. 4 months have passed and virtually no edits have been made to the article in that time.  Renominating it is perfectly acceptable.  What's not acceptable is this article.  The relationship between these two countries is far too tenuous to support a real article.  I say we WP:Delete the junk.  Snotty Wong   confess 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could certainly use tidying up and expanding but a quick google search turned up enough evidence of some sort of relationship between the two countries; there's also a brief Azerbaijani (sp?) news article here that isn't (yet) used as a ref. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for finding that link, its been added to the article.


 * Keep as a standard Wikipedia almanac entry. Almanac entries are one of the pillars of Wikipedia and common outcomes show them to be inherently notable, smaller ones are merged into longer lists for each country where there is just a line or two of text, but this one is big enough to be a stand alone almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I resent the waste of time. This second nomination is A) Too soon.  B) By same guy who didn't get his way the first time around.


 * Last time - Seven said keep - one said merge, and two said delete. The arguments made last time for keeping it, are still valid now. A) It is a notable topic.  B)  Almanac entries are one of the pillars of Wikipedia. C) Google search turned up enough evidence of a relationship between the two countries. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep ridiculous nom. Afd is not for try, try, try again if you dont get your way. Outback the koala (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * you haven't at all explained your argument. I've argued lack of significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the from the Danish Min. of Foreign Affairs showing that, although its a low priority, there is still ongoing work between the two states. The IMS work isnt too bad Outback the koala (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is a great background from the Azeri side which would be a great addition to the article. Look a little before making these nominations. I'm usually a deletionist myself, but come on. Outback the koala (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * and have you found third party coverage ie independent of the subject? eg major newspapers or news services? LibStar (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as an article that provides appropriate sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, and as the claim to noteability has been further strenghted with a media article focussing purely on the relationship just added. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: the two countries in question do not even have full bilateral diplomatic relations, the sources cited are largely trivial (and/or primary source) -- and do not establish the existence of a substantive diplomatic relationship, and in fact one of them suggested that such a diplomatic relationship was only 'prospective' (WP:CRYSTAL). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've undone a non-admin "keep" closure of this AfD per WP:NACD: "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator."  Sandstein   08:05, 20 November 2010 (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.