Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Kyrgyzstan 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. Deletionists vs. inclusionists battle aside, there is no consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Greece-Kyrgyzstan relations

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

Unreferenced, non-notable intersection of countries. Neither country has a mission in the other. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There's some substance here (2008) Greece, Kyrgyzstan sign bilateral accords in air transports, tourism and diplomacy during Kyrgyz president Askayev's visit, although there is zero mention under the news search under "Greece and Kyrgyzstan" .  Although, normally, I don't count a visit between two Presidents as significant by itself, the variety of the agreements, and discussion of Kyrgyz troops training at Greek bases, indicates to me that the nations are working on a relationship, one of the factors that I think supports an article. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete One event and a handfull of agreements don't make for significance here. WP:NOTNEWS. No coverage of the topic as a whole is available. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS prohibits the creation of an article entitled "Bilateral agreements signed by Greece-Kyrgyzstan", it has nothing to do with incorporating verifiable information in an existing article. If you are going to quote policy, try and cite the actual text in the policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten us as to the functional difference between your hypothetical article title and this one at present? Either way, it's cruft, and there is no third-party coverage of the article title to be found here. As it is, you have a long habit of twisting any policy to suit your own meaning. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cruft is just a subjective term, meaning "I don't like it". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per references found. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Google searches are not references. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet, through what appears to be magic, the information in the media that Google leads you to is a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Magic' appears to be the wrong word; the appropriate term would 'illusion', as in 'Google searchs give the illusion of references'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your personal bias, not mine. A reference, is a reference, is a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr Norton, you need to read WP:RS so that you understand what a reliable source is. A Google search is not a reference by any stretch of the imagination.  (Taivo (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Yet, through what appears to be magic, the information in the media that Google leads you to is a reference. (cut and pasted from above) For instance Google led me to the BBC that reported on the meeting. Google isn't the reference, the BBC is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete some coverage (mainly about the 2004 presidential visit) and quite minor agreements. I would consider changing vote if more evidence (than what Mandsford found) is discovered. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, random X-Y article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete there are 700 people of greek descent living in kyrgyzstan? What does that say about bilateral relations? Political figures from each country once met? What does that say about bilateral relations? There are no reliable sources yet found that could help establish this is a notable relationship in the encyclopedic sense, because none (all in the article are primary, but whatever) treat this relationship in any depth beyond the trivial.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete complete lack of secondary sources that discuss the relationship as their subject, fails notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. More random boiler-plate about a relationship that even the subjects themselves don't seem to care about, given their lack of missions. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks secondary sources to establish the notability of the topic. - Biruitorul Talk 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Bilateral relations articles have a strong presumption of notability, and the sources provided in the article and the additional ones available establish notability here. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no: many of them violate WP:GNG, and the ones that don't are trivia we'd never bother to mention outside this series of nonsense articles. State visits happen literally every week of every year, as do cooperation agreements, yet somehow we manage not to include this here or this here, but feel compelled, for some odd reason, to dump in trivia of a similar calibre here. - Biruitorul Talk 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well with 38,025 permutations of state visits, and one occurring "every week of the year" (52) it would require 731 years to complete a cycle. 52 visits a year doesn't seem like so big number that Wikipedia cannot handle it when part of an article on international relations. What goes on on Kyrgyzstan, may not be of interest to you, but Wikipedia isn't written only for you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Agreements between the two nations on air transports, tourism and diplomacy, as the article reads, is enough to warrant an article. Their leader flew over to another country, just to discuss and sign treaties for this.  If the nations had no relationship, would he have bothered to visit?  How many small nations have their ruler flying around visiting a lot of other nations, other than those somehow important to the relationship of their two countries?   D r e a m Focus  17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and since we have no secondary sources discussing this topic, neither do you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely - see WP:SYNTH, WP:PSTS & WP:NOR - we can't ascribe importance to something not covered in secondary sources. And by the way, could we elevate our language here a little? "Their leader" is vague and childish; "the Kyrgyz President" or "Akayev" is precise and to the point. - Biruitorul Talk 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And every year there are heads of state that fly to places they want to visit independent of official duties. What's in Athens that any tourist might like to see?  Well, quite a lot in relation to, say, Ulanbatar or Harare.  But a head of state needs something to do after they've taken the private tour bus around, like sign a simple air traffic agreement to justify the expense to the state's budget.  (Taivo (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Your using Original research as your rationale. That isn't a valid reason in Wikipedia. If the meeting and agreements were reported by the BBC, they thought it was important, even if it doesn't seem important to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Are we going to endorse an article on every combination of X and Y in country relations?  What is the lower limit on notability?  Greece-X relations, where X is a neighbor (Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, etc.) or major country (US, UK, Russia, etc.) is a reasonable topic.  What comes next?  Greece-Fiji?  Vanuatu-Gabon?  Transnistria-Nauru?  One meeting, one air traffic agreement, one photo op at a conference, adjoining seats at the U.N--these do not make noteworthy foreign relations.  (Taivo (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete Not enough reliable sources that discuss this relationship. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my vote after the alleged "Substantial coverage of this bilateral relationship." I don't see it. One air travel agreement and one presidential visit does not substantial relationship make. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires "'significant coverage' which means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." What details in the article do you believe are original research? The requirement for "substantial coverage" is your own requirement, not Wikipedia's. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article.Knobbly (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your using the fallacy of the slippery slope as your rationale. That isn't a valid reason in Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per references in the article right now; no general support for non-notable articles of this format, but this one article meets minimum inclusion thresholds as spelled out at WP:N. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No substantial coverage of this bilateral relationship. Eusebeus (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has undergone a massive improvement since nomination and since most of the deletes above.  As Jayron32 correctly identifies, due to the substantial coverage of this bilateral relationship, any legitimate concerns have now been objectively met.  Good job!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-sourced, clearly notable. There was not much there when nominated, but after Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) did this expansion, but there certainly is now. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 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.