Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egypt–Mongolia 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn in light of improvements. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Egypt–Mongolia relations

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

whilst Mongolia has a resident embassy, Egypt doesn't. I've checked the first 70 articles of gnews search, yes there was 2 or 3 high level visits and police going for training but not much else. yes they have some coooperation (not as strong as a trade or similar) agreements but doesn't have hardly any third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and handle via the Foreign Relations of X precedent. JJL (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom - WP:N isn't met. This is yet another bizarre bilateral relations article. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep depending on the extent to which the embassy in Cairo is a link to Mongolia's relations with other nations. In looking at List of diplomatic missions of Mongolia, there is no indication that Mongolia has an embassy anywhere else in Africa or in the Middle East, or (with the exception of France) any other nation on the Mediterranean Sea.   It's unclear why Mongolia started a relationship with Gamel Nasser's regime 45 years ago, or has continued to have representation since then; unlike most of this type articles, I can see the potential for more.  Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nasser had Soviet backing, and Mongolia was a Soviet puppet state (I don't think either of those assertions are in dispute), which probably explains why Mongolia sought to establish diplomatic relations shortly before the Suez conflict; because the USSR was trying to use the dubious distinction of diplomatic relations with Mongolia (presumably, in conjunction with other measures) to foster a positive image for Nasser's regime, in the lead-up to Nasser's Soviet-backed move on Suez. I doubt anyone in the present Mongolian regime is even aware of this, and that the Embassy persists entirely due to inertia.  History buffs like me, and perhaps the guy who voted before me, may find such trivia interesting...but it doesn't justify a whole article.  And frankly, if my OR explanation is inaccurate, well, any other explanation is liable to be less interesting (and even less Notable). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I doubt anyone in the present Mongolian regime is even aware of this, and that the Embassy persists entirely due to inertia" That may have been intended as humorous, but I think that what is suggested about the intelligence of people in Mongolia is offensive.  Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I suppose the Battle of Ain Jalut is relevant. There is nothing in the title that says the article only discusses current relations. I have added this and other content. Nothing out of the ordinary, but a verifiable and notable ongoing relationship - plenty of independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Buckshot06(prof) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, my argument was that it is "notable and verifiable", not just "notable". The pillars of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * perhaps you would like to demonstrate how it meets WP:N. AfDs are discussions to see how it meets WP:N, not merely saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. no one is questioning that these relations can be verified. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The relations between these countries are notable. The high level visits which were covered by the press were even mentioned by the nominator. This article has also been substantially improved bringing to light the long relations between these two peoples.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:26, 11 August 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.