Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egypt-Japan 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Egypt-Japan relations

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

This is yet another stub in a long line of stugs (all unsourced) being created about non-notable international "relationships." There are no sources that discuss the Egypt-Japan relationship in depth, and anything of note that happens between the two countries (i can find nothing but cordial exchanges at conferences and some bog-standard trade stuff) can be mentioned in articles about those counties, i.e. Foreign relations of Egypt and Foreign relations of Japan. I would also like some support from other editors for stopping the serial creation of unsourced stubs; the encyclopedia has enough unsourced articles as it is. Adding more with little hope of expansion is damaging. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of any relevance under WP:N. Content is merely dates and routine presidential visits between the two countries without any reflection of underlying relations work between governments and ministries. No indication of the significance of these two countries' relationship compared to any other random pair. "References" aren't even actually cited from the text. -- BlueSquadron Raven  20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable in the usual way. No argument has been presented for why this is a highly exceptional article that needs to be treated in a highly irregular way.  .  All the bits are here.  Over $1 Billion/year in trade, high level political exchanges, cultural and technology exchange ... Wily D  20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm, $1 billion in trade is less than 1% of Egypt's GDP, and less than .01% of Japan's GDP. That's a pretty set of links to press releases and news briefs you've got there, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as pretty as using arithmetic to argue that one billion dollars is pocket change. Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, percentages and arithmetic that show the comparitive worth of things are cool. I mean, someone who is poorly informed might think "$1 billion DOLLARS!" means something in international trade. But the cool thing about fancy dancy percentage calculations is they give us a sense of scale and notability -- and in this case help us find out that not only is Egypt an insignificant trading partner of Japan (not so surprising, given the size of the Japanese economy) but that even relative to Egypt's teeny, tiny economy (yes -- $130 billion may sound like a lot to you, but for GDP it's chickenfeed -- per capita Egypt wouldn't be in the top 100 nations) the trading relationship is microscopic. So if there is some reason to have a stand alone article on "Egypt-Japan relations" that reason is not to be found in their tiny trade relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And when I compare 13 people to the population of Binghamton, 0.0003 percent isn't that significant. Cool! Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, yes, but the Economy of Japan is not exactly scrapping the bottom of the notability barrel. "Less notable than the economy of Japan" is not exactly a convincing deletion rationale. Wily D  14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete From this article, you find out that Japan recognized Egypt's independence (and so did every other country), the fact that they make trade with each other (not that notable of a fact, more trivial than anything). And various government officials making visits to the countries. In case someone doesn't know that: government officials make visits to other countries all the time. There is not something that is magically notable in this case. Tavix | Talk  21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Of the sources cited by Wily, the most significant is :| EGYPTIAN-JAPANESE TRADE EXCHANGE HITS $1B (5 June 2002 "Japans ambassador in Cairo Takaya Suto said the Japanese-Egyptian relations have witnessed large leaps especially in the trade exchange which currently hits $1 billion including Japanese exports worth $730 million and Egyptian exports $150 million")... a billion dollars! If stuff like that had been in the article to begin with, it wouldn't have been nominated.   Relevant also are
 * | JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF EGYPT'S ROLE
 * | EGYPT ENHANCING ECONOMIC COOPERATION WITH JAPAN
 * | Egyptian ministers comment on trade with Japan ahead of Koizumi visit ("Cairo, 19 May [2003]: Official and private-sector economic circles in Egypt welcomed an expected visit by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi slated for Saturday and Sunday [24-25 May], expecting a strong qualitative leap in bilateral cooperation in the political, economic, investment, technological, tourist and cultural domains.").   Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you thank you Mandsford! A strong qualitative leap -- ooh, my inner copywriter thrilled to read this! I clicked to read more. I was then only given a sentence or so, and asked to click to read more. That I did, and was offered the chance to Meet Japanese Ladies Beautiful Japanese Women Seeking Love & Marriage. Join Free Now! Damn, I can hardly wait. I can picture her now, my little Cio Cio san; our bilateral cooperation will have strong qualitative leaps. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Considerable possibility for expansion, as shown by Mandsford. One would expect that of two countries as important as these two.  The indiscriminate manufacture of articles about really borderline topics is not a good way to improve Wikipedia. The indiscriminate nomination for deletion of all those so created without looking at individual notability is also not a good way to do things. DGG (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems like a notable relationship to me, I have seen numerous articles like this on the chopping block today. Two larger countries both notable for their extensive amount of trade who seem to have established relatio0nships makes a keep in my book. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Goodness vote keep. But please, it's painful to see someone refer to $1 billion dollar as "extensive" for a bilateral trade relationship. It's peanuts (there may or may not be good reasons for this notability -- but the bilateral trade is empirically non-notable at that level).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's peanuts, then do be a good chap and fax it to me fast. I need it to keep my Cio Cio san (see above) in kimonos and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:RS found by Wily D and Mandsford to document at least some notability. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC) See my new standards. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm with DGG here. A fuel exuding nation of 83 million people, a fuel guzzling nation of 127 million people, neither of them constrained by much of a democracy: I see an exciting relationship here. The face of it may be mostly a matter of professionally honed bovine byproduct but there's more going on and sources are sure to come up. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 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.