Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark–Kuwait 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Denmark–Kuwait relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These seem like routine and unremarkable relations. The only thing here besides the fact that relations exist between the countries is the fact that Kuwait was involved in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which doesn't seem to be enough to establish notability. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the amount of work Prisencolin put in to this article. I think it's enough to satisfy most of the concerns I had when I nominated it, but I'm still not sure if it's enough to satisfy notability. For these reasons, I'm going to change my opinion to neutral. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject isn't generally notable and there's no point in having an article for the sake of a blue link somewhere else. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:GNG. Relations not subject to significant in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Danish troops were part of the coalition forces in during the Gulf Wars and many of them were station or passed through Kuwait. Surely this amounts to something. Unless I'm mistaken military involvement counts as bilateral relations.-Prisencolin (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * it may add to relations but doesn't give a free pass to a wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some other bilateral relations, such as a tax treaty and oil refining.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The tax treaty is an extremely standard in international relations. Any 2 countries that do trade have one. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, surprising to me. There seems to be enough to justify an article. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * could you please explain how it meets notability requirements? LibStar (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. The Danish Defence has troops stationed in Kuwait; 2. Kuwaiti expatriots in Denmark, and vice-versa; 3. Bilateral trade treaty. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * there is no trade agreement. There is a tax treaty which is an extremely standard in international relations.  Any 2 countries that do trade have one. The expatriate population is very small.  LibStar (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that some editors seem to accept the smallest fig leaf of content to substitute for the "in depth coverage" we're supposed to expect. Does Kuwait have some diplomatic relations with Denmark? Yes. Does that mean there should be a standalone article? No. None of this content is important, in my opinion, and even if it were it can exist in other articles. There's no reason for this article to exist. The standards have dropped so far on this website that it disappoints me. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you know that tax treaties are extremely standard, and if so why would this insignificance make this article fail notability.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * well said. Significant relations qualify for an article, but not any relations. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * delete a routine diplomatic relationship, insufficient to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article - and it could very well be improved in the future. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are 96 articles in Wikipeida.en about "Foreign relations of Denmark" so I can't figure out why this particular article have been singled out for a nomination for deletion - I find it absurd. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an absurd reason for keeping. You really need to read arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete There isn't enough at this point for an article. Significant relations would have multiple secondary works about it. Over here, there are a few newspapers articles which talk about individual events, but nothing much about the relation itself. We are supposed to write an article when a secondary sources has compiled these events and shown how these are relevant to the relations. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- borders on WP:SYNTH without 3rd party analysis of the actual relations being present. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2016 (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.