Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark – Kazakhstan 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. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Denmark – Kazakhstan relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

this topic really lacks coverage, most of the article is a direct copy of this. coverage is sorely lacking as in this search in gnews. yes the Kazakh President visited Denmark in 2000 but not much else (one story on reaction to those Danish cartoons), and if that's the only major bilateral visit in 18 years of relations says a lot. those wanting to keep should provide evidence of indepth coverage of actual bilateral relations not passing mentions or mentions of these 2 countries in articles mentioning 10 countries. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep $500 million is a significant amount of trade and Danish companies seem to be substantially invested in portions of Kazakhstan's economy. The high level visits over the past decade indicate importance. To LibStar's point that there has "only" been one visit by Kazakhstan's President to Denmark, what has happened in the past matters just as much as what is happening at this moment.--TM 22:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you mean less than 100 million of dollars. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep since there seem to be important business connections between these two countries. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- WP:V. $500 million [488 million DKK or $85 million] is less than [0.1%] of either's GDP, so is hardly "a significant amount of trade". And there is no indication that Danish companies' investments are 'substantial'. No indication that either nation places any especial emphasis on the relationship. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What percentage of US GDP do you think is with Israel? Are those relations notable? This argument is ridiculous.--TM 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Namiba: Israel gets over 1% of its GDP each year (approx $2.5 billion pa) as direct aid from the US. This is FIVE [FIFTY] TIMES the total trade between Denmark & Kazakhstan as direct aid. It is your counter-argument that is "ridiculous". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So relations are only notable on the Israeli end, correct? If you read my question correctly (which you didn't), you would have seen that I wrote "US GDP" not "Israeli GDP". My point is that for relations to be notable, GDP to trade is not a useful indicator. Here is what I see in the article: a Presidential visit to Denmark, a visit by Kazakhstan's foreign minister in 2010. I see hundreds of millions of dollars in trade going each way on a yearly basis. I see controlling interests by one country's conglomerate corporation in the major economic producer of the other. All of which is verifiable with reliable sources, all be they primarily governmental and not from a commercial media.--TM 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The economic relationship (being the one affected by your WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE argument)? Not. In. The. Slightest. Economically, the US would not even notice if Israel fell off the side of the earth. Politically, of course it's a different matter -- the US has a very powerful pro-Israel lobby. But given that Denmark does not possess a similarly-powerful pro-Kazakh lobby, this is irrelevant. Likewise the WP:ROUTINE visits, the  trade figures are really quite small (compared to either country or to global trade) and far-flung owenership by multinationals is commonplace (and only tangentially related to the relationship between the two). And I am now completely sick to death about arguing about such obvious trivia -- SO GIVE IT A REST! Neither the two countries involved (no direct representation) nor third parties (no third party coverage) really care about this vestigial relationship -- so why should Wikipedia violate policy by having an article on it? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the surprisingly significant economic ties between the two states. These alone seem notable enough for me. The article is sourced and the coverage looks fine to me. Outback the koala (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * tens of millions of dollars of trade is not significant. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Hundreds of millions of dollars is notable no matter what. The nation allows most of its oil to be owned by a company in another nation.  Things like that are notable and this article is a good place to have them.    D r e a m Focus  14:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you mean tens of millions of dollars. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Outback the koala and Dream Focus. I too was surprised how well-documented the trade and diplomatic relations were between these two nations. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * which diplomatic relations are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   speak 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: as I pointed above, this article's existence isn't simply in violation of WP:Notability guidelines, it is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability policy -- "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I would note that none of the keep !votes have even attempted to address this point. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment: I would also point out that (i) most of the keep !votes have been WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE, and thus invalid. (ii) Adding to this problem is the fact that they are under a misapprehension, typified by DreamFocus' "Hundreds of millions of dollars is notable no matter what" that such figures aren't completely commonplace in terms of world trade (or even in terms of the economies of even medium-sized countries), where it is only in the billions that numbers start to really matter. When the numbers creep into 10-11 figures, bean-counters at Foreign Ministry start to think that maybe the numbers are becoming big enough that they actually care more than nothing about them, so should open a small consulate that's actually in the country to prevent the sort of misunderstandings that cause these numbers to go down the toilet periodically. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further further comment: I would note that Kazakhstan considers its relationship with Denmark to be so earth-shatteringly important that they haven't even bothered to update their page on the topic in four years. If you listen closely, you can hear the snoring in Astana and Copenhagen. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting old. The last time I checked, whether something was "important" or not is not a guideline for notability on Wikipedia. The consensus on here is to keep anyway, so it is not worth discussing further, especially if you continue to be condescending.--TM 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A pillar of Wikipedia is that it is an almanac, and this is standard almanacical information. Commons outcomes have been to merge the smaller ones into larger Foreign Relation articles. I don't know of any that have been deleted in the past. So, the argument is: is this big enough for a stand alone article or should it be duplicated into the two foreign relation articles? I think it is big enough that we only need one copy, and not two copies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. Most recently Canada Tonga. In many cases none of the content has been merged. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * and you have participated in almost all the bilateral AfDs so please don't pretend "I don't know of any that have been deleted in the past" LibStar (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * comment on hundreds of millions of dollars of trade this is false, the article misrepresented the source which says Danish kroner. Given thay 1DKK=0.17USD this equates to less than 100 million of USD of trade. LibStar (talk)
 * Keep - trade and economic relations. well-documented too.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also dont see the point in the Afd taging of national relations by Libstar, which has led to a number of unnecessary Afd discussions. I wonder just exactly the same thing that you was wondering about my arguments on another Afd, have you actually read this article? Because if you had you wouldnt have put it up for Afd. This article is clearly notable and the relations between the two nations are established by sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted most recently Canada-Tonga. Please check the article version when I nominated it, it was a copy violation of this. I always read articles unlike you which has been clearly demonstrated in various AfDs. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there are no "relations" between these two countries to speak of -- just a couple of facilities owned by Danish multinationals, a TINY amount of trade, a very rare state visit and some fishermen. The typical sort of trivia that never-say-die inclusionists load up an AFDed article with to give the vague appearance that there is something to write about. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (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.