Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong–Qatar 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong–Qatar relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. there is no evidence of actual significant interaction or relations. those wanting keep must show this evidence. having joint membership of various global organisations is not necessarily an indicator. those wanting keep must show this evidence. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Direct actual significant interaction or relations added. Hong Kong and Qatar's relations are obvious, actual, direct, and significant. Consular established in Hong Kong, mutual visa agreement, and economic tax free treaty signed, all evidence point to the fact that Hong Kong and Qatar's relations are obvious, actual and direct. The policies between the two highly related to the residence of the two areas, which adds up to be at least 9.5 million of population, and not to mention those population indirectly economically counting on these two important Asia economies. This article is definitely significant and should be kept. Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely zero evidence of significant interaction. Adding up the 2 populations as a measure of a notability is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard in my several years on Wikipedia.  Your arguments are vague and do not address WP:GNG and further emphasise this article should be deleted not kept. Obvious and actual relations is  not the same as notable relations  LibStar (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course foreign policy would affect, and thus notable to their citizens. And I have listed a lot of concrete evidence to prove my point. Meanwhile, I see only comments and ideas but no a single proof from you to back up your point. Your point cannot be convincing if you have no evidence.Xxjkingdom (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

all the sources to date are primary sources which just proved this lacks third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Please read WP:N for Wikipedia definition of notability. LibStar (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you're basically arguing any relations equals a Wikipedia article. That is not the case. Quite a few bilaterals have been deleted. Things like common membership with zero proof of interaction in these multilateral  forums rather than joint membership, visa free arrangements do not provide evidence of a notable relations.  LibStar (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's extend your adding up population equals more notability reasoning. Nigeria and Palau population adds to over 180 million therefore there is some notability there. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting a straw man. By the way, I think the article contains both primary and secondary coverage at the moment.Xxjkingdom (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You're the one that added 2 cities populations and somehow concluded erroneously this demonstrates a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First, Qatar and Hong Kong are more than cities. Second, Qatar and Hong Kong have encountered in significant trade. Third, they are in alliance with treaties signed.Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

First, adding up populations is frankly a ludicrous way other proving notability. Secondly trade is not significant, imports from Hong Kong represent a tiny tiny 0.08% of all imports to Qatar. In other words if Hong Kong stopped trading with Qatar, no one would notice in Qatar. LibStar (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is only one treaty signed. The double taxation treaty is very standard in world relations between any 2 states that trade. I will emphasise again, having some relations is not the same as notable relations for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Importance of trade should not be counted only by adding up percentage, but how the type of the product affect the economies, economically, socially, and culturally, usually more than the direct GDP generated. Nearly all power plants in Hong Kong (except one experimental Wind Power plant on Lamma Island) are ran by petroleum, and also not to mention almost all the vehicles on the road use petroleum. An absence of Qatar import would be critical and quickly noticeable in Hong Kong.Xxjkingdom (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * are they actually run by petroleum sourced from Qatar? if not, you're just making things up to invent bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. It is because you were making things up to invent an absolute relation between % and importance of trade, I am suggesting that you have neglected other possibilities. I have no burden of proof here.Xxjkingdom (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please provide an actual source which clearly states petroleum in Qatar is used in Hong Kong power plants. If you don't, your statements are a concoction. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if "there is no evidence of actual significant interaction or relations" it is entirely appropriate for an article to report on the absence provided there are appropriate sources reporting the fact. In this case there are sources quoted to explain the history of the relationship and the current rather limited relations. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you're arguing bilateral relations is inherently and a lack of interaction therefore qualifies for an article. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't read what I said about sources. A lack of relations would likely be highly unusual and sources might well comment on that. However, in this case there is not an absence of relations. Thincat (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A lack of relations between 2 places located so far away apart and Hong Kong which isn't even a country is not remarkable and hardly noteworthy. What next Eritrea-Hong Kong relations? Palau-Andorra relations? LibStar (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing for inherent non-notability. What if there were plentiful good sources? Thincat (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * hardly. there are in fact plenty of notable bilateral relations that have articles. A lack of coverage of interactions is what is with this Qatar and Hong Kong relations.  They are not in a hostile relationship like USA and North Korea  (which easily passes WP:GNG). to somehow characterise a whole 'lot of primary sources' that confirms very little relations between a non country and a country equates to a notable Wikipedia article sets a new bar for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

— Tart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: If you know the case of Hong Kong, it is an independent economy, with its own right to develop foreign relations in economic, cultural, and many other appropriate fields. As economy-economy relations, it is definitely worth noting, not to mention a lot have treated Hong Kong as a nation on its own. If you think this is a point to delete the page, maybe you should also delete all those foreign relation pages relevant to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, and many others. But this is not how Wikipedia works. Meanwhile, Hong Kong and Qatar are the 44th and the 50th largest economy on earth. How could these two economic powers' relations irrelevant and unimportant? Simply amiable relations could ensure the prosperity of the two economies. Amiable relations did not mean there is nothing happening, but there is a lot in it to keep a peaceful relation. Let's put it to the case, what if the relation turn worse? Wouldn't it lead to catastrophic events worse than 911? It is not only catastrophic that should be remarked, but that keeping prosperous is also equivalently, if not more, important in human history. The relations between the two is doing such a great thing. In addition, the page is informative with concrete facts and reliable sources. Moreover, I believe there could be a coverage bias, just because Hong Kong and Qatar are not English dominant societies, coverage is probably wider in local languages other than English, thus people living in the English speaking world could have a disguised perspective from what is happening there. Therefore, I see no reason not to support to keep this page.Tart (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have given zero evidence as to how WP:GNG is met. Hong Kong and Qatar are the 44th and the 50th largest economy on earth.  is completely irrelevant to the actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also interesting that this is your 2nd ever edit on Wikipedia and first edit in 9 months. To suddenly appear here and try to present a case in an AfD with no prior experience and provide a strikingly similar long winded post . LibStar (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You've also tried to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I normally edit in other languages and I do not use auto login. But that is irrelevant to the argument, you are the one who are really trying to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please keep the discussion to an academic level but I see you attacking me personally instead. My last two points are about WP:GNG and you said no evidence without a reason or response. You give no reason. A college 101 lesson on International Relations might help to understand that every relations between two governmental entities are highly relevant to their citizens. Common sense perhaps even to layman. Tart (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You said  you are the one who are really trying to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is completely illogical, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument for keep whilst I am arguing for delete' . The non sensical response to my claim just is preposterous and illogical. The fact you try to paraphrase my arguments back to me is strikingly similar to another editor. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is solely based on primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. That is 101 Wikipedia. Please provide your user name for a foreign language WP. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are both primary and secondary sources there. This is my user name. I hope it is what in the conversation but not who made the conversation that counts. Tart (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There's definitely clutching at straws with some of the sources you've added. This one doesn't even mention Qatar and an incident at a football match hardly demonstrates bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are monographs on the issue. Please read before judge. Hong Kong-Qatar relations also mentioned in the source you quoted.Tart (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This one doesn't even mention Qatar. Also what foreign language articles did you edit in your 9 month absence from English Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This article does not also refer to Qatar. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Both articles are about scholarship for Hong Kong students studying in Qatar and Qatari students studying in Hong Kong.Tart (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. a reference that does not use even the word Qatar can hardly be used to establish notability of relations. In fact the sources do not even verify that qatari students are eligible and even if they were eligible they cover such a small number the media can't even refer to Qatar. article refer to an agreement with many many countries and do not cover Hong Kong Qatar relations directly. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Overall, I do think the bilateral economic relations between Hong Kong and Qatar are notable enough for their own article, assuming this&mdash;"Qatar [has been] Hong Kong's [most] important trade partner in the Middle East since [the] 20th Century"&mdash;is actually the case. It's also contingent upon whether or not the reference provided actually affirms this claim. Kurtis (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * comment The article contains a lot of padding that says nothing about actual bilateral relations especially this article http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34451286 how this relates to Qatar's relations with Hong Kong beats me, it could have been Hong Kong playing Liberia and the fans still would have booed at the anthem. The statement that Hong Kong does not have a trade office in Qatar despite having offices elsewhere contributes completely zilch to actual relations. Membership of sporting international organizations does not establish bilateral relations and citing membership lists as a reference proves zero about actual bilateral interaction. In any case, bilateral relations articles in wikipedia do not discuss sporting relations . LibStar (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * comment Almost all, if not all, information provided in the page are highly relevant to the issue. Sports and International relations are highly relevant and a hot topic in modern days' international studies.Xxjkingdom (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * hot topic? Fancy word that doesn't mean notable. Please explain how Hong Kong fans booing at the Chinese National anthem advances the notability of Hong Kong Qatar relations.  Your style of responding to me is strikingly similar to another editor.  LibStar (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (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.