Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirati–Kosovan 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Emirati–Kosovan relations

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

information could easily be contained here Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo. not strongly opposed to redirect but would prefer delete as unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent for almost all X-Y relations articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The information is already included at the nominator's suggested location, no need to worry about that. At present there seems to be a lack of in-depth coverage of relations between UAE and Kosovo, not nearly enough to establish notability, to say the least. The article can alway be undeleted as their intercourse becomes more complex and noteworthy. Drawn Some (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Relations between these two countries are notable. Kosovo announced that it will open an embassy in the UAE in 2009. Also, the UAE is a wealthy country and has already started to contribute to Kosovo. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * isn't your last sentence original research? LibStar (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Turkish Flame   ☎  02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * your first article above, blogs are unreliable sources for Wikipedia as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That article was first published in The National on Sunday 26 Oct 2008. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't be verified as per WP:V, who knows if the blog author altered it? LibStar (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Turkish has been the only "keep" !voter in almost all of these "X-y relations" discussions. That should tell you something. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would not only be WP:OR but WP:CRYSTAL. Drawn Some (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "It can't be verified as per WP:V, who knows if the blog author altered it?" Well, let's use the original version, then, on the newspaper's own website www.thenational.ae – it also mentions that the UAE donated $25.7million to build a humanitarian airport in Kosovo. OK? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 08:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the new way of handling these bilateral relations pages. JJL (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * COmment see WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force, Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. JJL (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The page appears to pass muster under the standards set at WikiProject_International_relations (a significant involvement in a war and humanitarian assistance, although that page clearly says those are merely guidelines, not set in stone). The other page you refer to is an ongoing discussion that has not reached a concrete policy. Perhaps more clarification is in order.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment better handled at e.g. Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo. JJL (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching United Arab Emirates for "Kosovo", and Kosovo for "Emirates" shows nothing. Foreign relations of Kosovo mentions only that the UAE is one of three Arab countries to have recognized the independence of Kosovo, and Foreign relations of the United Arab Emirates mentions nothing about Kosovo. Which countries recognize Kosovo is important, and it is correctly handled in Foreign relations of Kosovo. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The relations between two sovereign nation states or lack thereof is inherently notable and deserving of its own page. Some status of a relationship has been sourced so appeals to WP:V for a delete are illogical. Obviously, with only the recent international recognition of Kosovo as a nation state, such relations are in their infancy. I advocate keeping and expanding this article as relations develop. Historical relations might also be explored on this page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The relations between two sovereign nation states or lack thereof is inherently notable and deserving of its own page then why about 150 of these bilateral articles been deleted? LibStar (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak about other pages that have been deleted without my seeing them. I will say that the deletion of such pages would seem to me to be a misguided effort on the part of the editors patrolling this page. As far as this specific page is concerned, it seems clear to me that both countries are in the process of attempting to develop relations. Your original reason for deleting this page was that it could be contained at Foreign relations of Kosovo. That page is already quite long. You seemed to think Ethiopia-Qatar relations was worth saving. If we had spent as much energy improving the article instead of trying to delete it by now, I quite confident it would a worth-while read.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here. LibStar (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added material to this page that I think should address all concerns raised. I urge all those who voiced a call for deletion of this article, which I personally found to have profound importance, to re-evaluate their opinions.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sourced information about diplomatic/military relations. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 08:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the references found and added by User:Cdogsimmons are sufficient to establish notability per WP:N - great work (it's very unusual for Middle Eastern countries to deploy peace keeping forces to Europe by the way). Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The peace keeping forces are notable because of what it says about the UAE's relations with Europe. The UAE is not attempting to establish a relationship with Kosovo! Indeed, we can read "Following Iraq's 1990 invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait, the UAE has sought to rely on the GCC, the United States, and other Western allies for its security." The UAE troops in Kosovo have nothing to do with Kosovo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As Kosovo is one of the very few Muslim-majority countries in Europe, it seems likely that the UAE may have had more altruistic motives than that. Moreover, the deployment generated enough coverage to meet WP:N, which is what's in question here. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Kosovan relationships, in my opinion, are notable due to its status Computerjoe 's talk 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pace Computerjoe - when it comes to a new country, external recognition and relations are crucial and revealing--Kashana (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Kashana (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Most of the article has nothing to do with relations between the countries as Kosovo didn't formally exist at the time. This information belongs in historical articles on the period. There have hardly been significant relations since. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The groundwork laid as governments are taking place is clearly relevant to national bilateral relations between recognized governments after those countries become recognized by the international community. Just look at France – United States relations. The UAE's significant steps to become involved in a present day relationship with Kosovo do belong on a page detailing that relationship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - to the extent the pre-2008 stuff is relevant, it can be covered at Kosovo Force and related articles; to pretend it has to do with the relations of two sovereign states (one of which under a third of UN members even recognise) is misguided. - Biruitorul Talk 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Delete Eusebeus (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. See my comment above regarding France – United States relations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable topic. Deletion avoids the problem of which of the two countries to redirect to. An unlikely search term, so not a good disambiguation page. Better to have 208 articles about "Foreign relations of.." than 20,000 xy bilateral articles. Edison (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that all U.S. foreign relations can be fit into one page? Clearly not. You probably think that U.S. foreign relations are notable enough to merit multiple pages. I submit that it would therefore be far better as a policy matter to have 20,000 articles detailing bilateral relations than excluding some on the basis of subjective impression regarding the "notability" of a country's relations. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, all poets would have an article on Wikipedia, as would all painters and plumbers. That's why WP:N recommends that a topic should be notable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cdogsimmons, you're using an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I put it in those terms because Edison did. I personally think that in a circumstance where nations have no clearly documented relations whatsoever, such a situation is undeserving of a page (although it would be interesting to understand why those countries have no relations). But this page does not fit into that situation. Let me try to explain why:
 * 1. The UAE extended military and humanitarian aid to the area and people that would become the state of Kosovo. According to this article those troops are still there. This was the UAE's first military mission outside of the Middle East and it was the only Muslim state to participate in the Kosovo Force.
 * 2. That military aid, in this case consisting of over a fifteen hundred peacekeepers and special operations forces, 6 Apache helicopters, 15 tanks and 50 armored fighting vehicles, (hardly "trivial" as Biruitorol suggests below) is sufficient to support the creation of an article detailing bilateral relations under the policy developed at WikiProject_International_relations, in that such military involvement denotes that the two country's have been involved in a war together, that they are in or have been in an alliance, or that they have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict. (The page itself says these factors need only be roughly met to create notability, and that these guidelines are not set in stone)
 * 3. The humanitarian aid extended by the UAE which has been substantial is also an indication of an alliance.The article above indicates that the aid given to Kosovo by the UAE’s Red Crescent Authority alone cost Dh125 million between 1998 and 2008.
 * 4. The UAE has recognized Kosovo's declaration of independence and thus, Kosovo should be recognized as having the status of a nation state by wikipedia for the purposes of this article.
 * 5. Kosovo is in the process of opening embassies around the world and has indicated that it will open an embassy in the UAE.
 * Therefore, in my opinion, a relationship clearly exists between these two countries sufficient to merit documentation by wikipedia in its own article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep When one nation sends troops and tries to help another country, then that relationship between them is clearly notable.  D r e a m Focus  10:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like we can't cover that bit at UNMIK or someplace like that. Notice that even UNMIK says nary a word about the provenance of the peacekeepers under its aegis. Kind of hints this sort of information might be trivial at best, no? - Biruitorul Talk 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Biruitorul, sending over 1,000 peacekeepers and special operations soldiers into a foreign country is not "trivial at best". Also encapsulating all relations between Kosovo and Emirati cannot and should not be done at an article on UNMIK. You might as well try to encapsulate the relationship between the United States and Russia at the article on the UN.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We usually look for a reliable source to indicate whether something is notable, rather than decide what is obvious ourselves. Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are suppose to use common sense and think for yourself, not rely entirely on the suggestions in the notability guidelines. Those are just suggestions to help you make a decision, not policy.   D r e a m Focus  16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment in fact, WP:V is indeed a policy, and WP:N and WP:RS are not mere 'suggestions'. I don't see why this case should be an exception to the rules, which is so like all the others that have been discussed in detail at the previously-mentioned pages in order to develop consensus on how to handle them. To the contrary, following consensus seems like a good idea for consistent treatment of these types of articles. Where is the source asserting that this particular relationship--beyond individual actions involving the two countries--is notable? JJL (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it's telling that even UNMIK says nothing about who makes it up, and that this fact only becomes a concern when we try to "rescue" stuff better consigned to the dustbin. After all, has anyone treated the subject of "Emirati–Kosovan relations"? If not, you're just breaching WP:SYNTH in claiming the UNMIK presence as evidence of such relations. And please, let's not compare the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, the subject of many a published volume, with Emirati police in UNMIK, whom no one has troubled to cite as having a bearing on "Emirati–Kosovan relations". - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete yes, when a topic isn't covered, in this case a bilateral relationship in any reliable sources, all of the "save" efforts hinge on strained synthesis, mentions in primary sources of tiny bilateral trade flows, etc... In the end there are good reasons why reliable sources that discuss a topic are a neccessary (but not sufficient) condition for inclusion. The failure to find sources in this case should make this a clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing notable about these bilateral relations is discussed in reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N is the only criteria by which to judge whether a topic gets a stand alone article and this topic doesn't meet those criteria. I see a few sourced statements on the history of Kosovo, but no evidence of coverage of Emirati–Kosovan bilateral relations in reliable, independent sources. !Keep arguments are not grounded in policy.Yilloslime T C  03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A strong keep. I'm not understanding this notion of deleting important inter-state relations as if we don't have room for them. --alchaemia (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just another note of more canvassing by Turkish Flame here's Alchaemia and then there's   and .Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 2 June 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.