Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek-Zimbabwean 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 to delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek-Zimbabwean relations

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

These two countries have a relationship, but as established by plenty of recent AfDs (see Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay relations for example), bilateral relations are not inherently notable. The only additional claims of notability are that Greece pledged some cash for Zimbabwe (which is hardly unusual, given it's a basket-case), and that the Greek Ambassador there made some pretty vague comments. These may make for interesting news stories, but hardly amount to an interesting relationship. Biruitorul Talk 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, regardless of the "interestingness" of the relationship there are multiple independent reliable sources which discuss it. Hilary T (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As noted, these types of articles are not inherently notable (as witnessed by the many in recent days that have been deleted). This one is even less so as by their own admission Zimbabwe does not even have an embassy in Greece. The entire relation ship doesn't even seem that bilateral. Fails WP:N. -- BlueSquadron Raven  20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you dismiss a relationship as non-notable because one of the partners is too poor to have an embassy is the most despicable thing I've yet heard from you wikipedians, far worse than the lies, the bullying, the cheating and the witchhunts. Hilary T (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "You" Wikipedians? That's an odd choice of words. -- llywrch (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Although there is really no point writing these pages unless more is said,  the very ref given in the article gives material for expanding. There's no point in attacking each other about it, though, in any case. At worst, it can be recreated with additional material.  DGG (talk)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Only two sources are provided, which aren't sufficient to meet the level of coverage required at WP:N, especially as one of them has nothing to say about the relationship between the two countries (unless Greece has become a theocratic state run by the Greek Orthodox church without anyone noticing). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seems to be confusing "countries" with "governments". Hilary T (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be counfusing the Greek Orthodox Church (which is a multi-national religious organisation) with a country. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - while maybe not as notable as some bilates recently nominated for deletion, it still more than meets the inclusion standard of WP:N, and I don't see it as an exceptional case. See . Wily D  13:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Link 1 tells us of a "sizable" Greek community there; if truly notable, we should have a Greeks in Zimbabwe article. Link 2 I already addressed. Link 3 is a series of news (news) articles. Link 4 - yeah, interesting, but again more of a Greeks in Zimbabwe candidate. - Biruitorul Talk 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I see we do have that article. Even more reason not to keep this one, then. - Biruitorul Talk 14:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TThat the sizeable Greek population in Zimbabwe has resulted in Greece and Zimbabwe having a notable relationship is pretty unsurprising, I guess. Wily D 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment contrary to some belief, WP:N is not a license to create and keep articles based on the most spurious of mentions in news media without casting even a cursory critical glance of comparison against other articles of the same type. If it were, a person with a lone mention in a newspaper of their brief political activist involvement at the municipal level would be sufficient grounds for an article. A little tighter, more concise editing for ease of use, navigation and access of information goes a long way. -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody believes this. But "Is a notable, encyclopaedic topic, if a stub" is a much stronger argument than "I don't like it". Wily D  15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we all agree that this topic passes WP:N. I think it would be helpful for BlueSquadronRaven to go into more detail about how WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to it. Hilary T (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's quite evident we don't all agree. Second, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here and I have no idea how you think it does. I have in the past pointed out examples of these type of articles that are notable. Articles of this type are not inherently notable just based on the subject. This is one that is not notable. If anything, I think some other editors arguments more fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- BlueSquadron Raven  18:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage sufficient to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the coverage sufficient to establish notability? Wily D 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the ones on subjects other than the one the article is about? -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the one on the bilateral relations between Greece and Zimbabwe. Wily D 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is none. Now you can keep saying "yes there is" but all you've found are newsbriefs and press releases that X official visited Y country. That kind of sourcing doesnt' establish independent notability for issues that should be covered (if there's any info on them at all -- none really in this "article") in Foreign relations of Greece and Foreign relations of Zimbabwe.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no relation, why would you mention it anywhere at all, let alone in two place? Hilary T (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't mention it, that's why this article is being deleted. Tavix | Talk  23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you Bali ultimate's sock puppet? If not, how can you answer for him? Maybe I should get one of those witchhunts going... Hilary T (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't know the question was exclusively for Bali. Why don't you assume good faith, eh? I dare you to get a witchhunt going, that would teach me a lesson! (sarcasm) Tavix | Talk  02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was intended for Bali, but a reply from anyone else who agreed with him would have been a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Hilary T (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as bilateral relations that do not assert notability. Tavix | Talk  23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wow, that reference on the page really made it very clear for me "no Greek businesses operate in the country and no businesspeople from Greece have developed activities there. Economic aid and development programmes have been insignificant from the beginning, except for certain individual grants" --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that reference also back up the religious connection: "The Holy Archbishopric of Zimbabwe and Southern Africa is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The Metropolitan of Zimbabwe, His Eminence George, was installed in December 2004 and serves the Holy Archbishopric together with a Greek priest." Also I don't agree with the objection to news items per se. This doesn't clearly fail WP:N, but perhaps merging with Greeks in Zimbabwe would produce a more substantial article. Nerfari (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hum, that Archbishop is only for the orthodox community in Zimbawe, which I think that is not very numerous? Is there a similar archbishop in every country with an orthodox population? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but in any case, this has very little to do with the Greek state. See the list of bishops under Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria: every district (Metropolis/Archdiocese) should ideally have an article, but this is not the place to do it. - Biruitorul Talk 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  —T L Miles (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep References already there, plus the Greeks in Zimbabwe points to a larger relationship. Some research would have told you that the role of Greek merchants in Central Africa and the eastern sudan, like the Lebanese and Syrians in West Africa, is of tremendous cultural/economic importance. T L Miles (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What references? Specifically, what references that might be used to write a fully-developed article? And isn't having this and Greeks in Zimbabwe permanently developing in isolation from one another bound to result in needless duplication? And what do Greek merchants in Sudan and Central Africa have to do with a landlocked country in Southern Africa? - Biruitorul Talk 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand what the issue you have is here. This is a stub.  The references already in the article establish notability. It doesn't have to be "a fully developed article" whatever that means.  And even less do other editors have to provide further references which would prove to you that this topic will meet some additional standard.  And very good, you noticed that Zimbabawe is landlocked.  How do you supposed Greek merchants in South Africa got there?  Or the DRC? In the early 20th century, following the formation of modern Turkey, a large diaspora of Greeks sought business opportunities in Africa, largely in British colonies.  Via Egypt and Sudan many ended up in DRC, and from there modern Zambia, Zimbabwe, and SA.  Therefore the Greek populations in these nations play an important role, and that has been an factor in the foreign relations of these post-independence nations.  This is the sort of information you might discover if you weren't on some mission to delete every unreferenced stub on bilateral relations some obsessive created, and which clearly has really gotten under your skin.  Perhaps its time for you to step back here.  T L Miles (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, those links do not establish notability. Everyone gives money to poor countries; we're not even told the amount of money and no follow-up articles exist indicating the impact of that money -- that's news, not encyclopedic material. The other link tells us how an Egyptian archbishop met with the President of Zimbabwe; again, news, and unrelated to the purported topic. A fully-developed article isn't a scientific term, but let's just say 3-4 good paragraphs at minimum: these could never be written on the subject. And yes, every article should have at least the potential to become an FA; without at least the existence of sources adduced by its defenders showing such an article could in theory be written, it should either be deleted or merged elsewhere. Regarding the Greek diaspora in Africa: a) we already have Greeks in Zimbabwe, Greeks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc (maybe a single Greeks in Africa would be better); b) no evidence has been produced showing showing these Greeks have played a role in Zimbabwe's foreign relations (I would think her British population would be the more influential). Finally, please comment on content, not contributors. You don't see me nominating Lithuania–Russia relations or Italy–Switzerland relations, even if the same guy created them, do you? I know those have some potential, so I leave them alone. - Biruitorul Talk 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't want these articles developing in isolation, why not merge them? Nerfari (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a possibility worth discussing. - Biruitorul Talk 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent example of an almanac like entry for Wikipedia. The topic is both notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, but doesn't that boil down to I like it, and isn't the almanac-style information already present here? - Biruitorul Talk 05:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. The article contains verifiable text not found in your chart. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - almost no relationship, as noted above. I read the primary source, and that convinced me. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Greece, Template:Foreign relations of Zimbabwe, Category:Bilateral relations of Greece, and Category:Bilateral relations of Zimbabwe are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted.  I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 03:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonexistent bilateral relations, which would be non-notable if there was anything to say about them. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears that the main argument for keeping revolves around a Greek Orthodox Bishop. The removing that fact (largely because the Greek Orthodox Church and the country of Greece are separate entities) the relationship does not meet WP:N and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Greece and Zimbabwe if found to be notable on those talk pages, otherwise Delete. Per WP:INSIGNIFICANT, it isn't important whether it is a significant relationship, but a notable one. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:15, 14 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.