Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Russia 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus–Russia relations

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

Another article about bilateral relations between two countries. While these two share embassies, there's no content actually discussing relations inside the article. It lacks cotent to the point I'd speedy delete it under criterion A3, but I'm bringing it here, because I know such an action would be controversial if done unilaterally. Delete Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Russia–Sweden relations for the sort of content an article actually needs to be viable (ignoring the fact it's unreferenced). - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lucky to Russians they never dared to wage war with Cyprus :)) seriously, before the Crisis Cyprus was ranked third or fourth "investor" in Russian assets, so they will not. NVO (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about the last crisis in Russia? Some 6-7 years ago, many people I know in Russia had their salaries paid in foreign currency, directly into Cypriot bank accounts. Of course, it wasn't just the normal Russians who took advantage of the Cypriot banking system (and of course the resultant avoidance of paying taxes in Russia), but also the Russian Mafia, and Cyprus became (if not) the number one destination for Russian money in the early 2000s. Is it still the case these days that people have their salaries paid into Cypriot bank accounts? Or am I right in remembering that inter-governmental agreements were signed in order to put a stop to this? And who can forget the Russian sale of S-300s to Cyprus in the late 90s, which caused an absolute shit-storm with Turkey and Greece (with others standing by on the sidelines opining left, right and centre). I'm struggling trying to understand the reasons why these have been brought here, even as they were they wouldn't be eligible under A3 of speedy criteria. --Russavia Dialogue 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also nominating (same reason):
 * - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 6,500 news results for Cyprus Russia relations and 33,500 news results for Belgium Russia relations. That's just in English language. I haven't even touched on books as yet, although considering relations between Russia and Belgium date back to the 18th century, I can't see why one would claim they are not notable, if that is in fact what they are being brought here for, because the nomination reasoning is not clear. --Russavia Dialogue 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasoning not clear? I thought I was pretty clear when I said it lacked content and that encyclopedic content could not be provided. I'd be happy to reconsider if you can find something encyclopedic in the hits you found. Just a bunch of big google numbers mean nothing especially when you didn't look at the words as a whole using quotes. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Already have added materials to meet basic notability criteria. --Russavia Dialogue 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 16:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep both. "Sharing embassies" very much qualifies for inclusion under this title, and it is content someone out there might actually seek.  As shown above, there is a lot of room for expansion as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:08, March 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sharing embassies is not enough for inclusion. There is previous precedent from similar aricles written by the same user. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a die-hard inclusionist, I very much disagree. Just because "other precedents" weren't lucky to be caught in due time does not mean deletionists can now go on with trigger-happy deletion sprees.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:35, April 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are actually does appear to be wealth of sources on these topics, so the General Notability Guidelines are fulfilled. Yilloslime T C  17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be notable enough for inclusion, there are quite a few reliable sources documenting it.  ♪Tempo  di Valse ♪  20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Google hits are not the same as sources. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep both notable and interesting. What is wrong with them? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. More than sufficient references. Cool3 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real content in the article apart from S-300 deal.DonaldDuck (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The threshold for inclusion into WP is whether the relations are notable. The S-300 deal is demonstration of the notable. Everything else can be dealt with Template:Expand or WP:BOLD. --Russavia Dialogue 07:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Have content, are sourced, notable. feydey (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep both I don't care about precedent in this case: exchange of ambassadors is evidence of a serious relationship between two countries. I think Russavia has made some important points about the notability of the relationship between Cyprus & Russia -- although I'd like to see some reliable sources for the banking statements. As for Belgium-Russia... sorry, Mgm, but the word that comes to my mind here is silly: these are 2 established European countries who undoubtedly have had a history of interactions over common interests: technology, investments, aristocratic connections, shared interests during the 2 World Wars, the behavior of the Communist Party of Belgium, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's one source relating to the laundering of money thru Cypriot banks, and it also includes what NVO stated above about Cyprus being a major investor in Russia, quoting "Until recently, most of the island's 14,000 or so offshore companies were Russian -- the majority "brass plate" firms with no physical operations there and opaque ownership structures.Cyprus has also become one of the largest foreign investors in Russia, due mainly to Russian money re-entering the country." -- I also remember the BBC investigation into Sibneft which revealed that the (previous - now controlled by Gazprom) "owner" of Sibneft was a lawyer operating out of a non-descript building in Cyprus? So yep, relations obviously are notable, but AfD should not be used instead of Template:Expand. I may work on the relations articles after I finish an article I am currently working on in userspace. --Russavia Dialogue 07:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Russavia, (1) when I wrote the above, there was no section in the article that mentioned this fact, so this was the only place I could ask for sources; (2) I wasn't addressing you specifically, just throwing out a suggestion to anyone who is interested in the topic; & (3) providing that link -- or a generalized reference to a series of newspaper articles or a book -- is quite sufficient in this forum. (I simply hadn't heard of this phenomena before, & expressed an interest to learn more about it.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Llywrch, I wasn't addressing you specifically either, I just saw your post and comments, and thought I'd throw the link in, just to show in general the notability, etc, etc, etc, etc. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - more than passes the standard of WP:N - I see no reason to treat this as an unusual case. Wily D 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, both are real relationships as the sources given show. Hilary T (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Hilary T (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C  19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilary, I looked at the appropriate logs but I did not see any deleted edits for you. Can you point to where these edits were -- or did you misremember what happened? -- llywrch (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He got Kavron deleted which I edited from my first account User:Hilary T In Shoes Hilary T (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that was patent nonsense, as the deleting administrator ruled. In no way was I attempting to "discredit" you; I was simply seeking to remove nonsense from the encyclopedia. Do review WP:AGF. - Biruitorul Talk 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith up to the point where people start lying, then I stop. Hilary T (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The fact that they share an embassy means that have a relationship. Whatever happened to WP:BEFORE?Smallman12q (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:N seems to be met here. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If diplomatic relations are not notable, then why have Template:Foreign relations of Cyprus and Template:Foreign relations of Russia? As long as Category:Bilateral relations of Cyprus and Category:Bilateral relations of Russia 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, 01:53, 4 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.