Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenya–Romania 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   delete. Consensus is strongly on the side of deletion here, and there is a general agreement that the topic does not meet notability requirements. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kenya–Romania relations

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

lack of significant coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly multilateral. , yes there's that water memorandum, but memorandums are much weaker than actual agreements. current article has citations on the usual "we want to cooperate more type" statements like every country that has diplomatic relations, there is little evidence of actual and notable trade. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete better handled as Foreign Relations of X articles. JJL (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if the foreign ministers are talking about trade treaties, the trade relations are notable DGG (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, if multiple independent sources deal with "Kenya–Romania relations", then we have an actual phenomenon worth writing about. - Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per there being enough relevent hits to support real bilateral relations between the two nations. here's a scholarly paper on bilateral tourism promotion between the two countries.  Here is a 2005 reference to contact between the two governments.  one from 2003 and a different one on a different issue from 2003 and one from 1983.  Here's one from 2007.  Google News turns up some other stuff from time to time as well, once you cull out all of the unrelated sports stuff.  I will admit its not the most vibrant relationship, but unlike many of these "X-Y relationship" articles, this one does seem to cross the notability Mendoza line. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two of your links have nothing to do with "Kenya–Romania relations": the scholarly paper discusses tourism promotion in Kenya and tourism promotion in Romania as two entirely separate topics; it says not a word about relations between the two. The 1983 story is about Romania-Somalia relations, not Romania-Kenya ones. Now that that's clear, let's address the others. "Kenya, Romania seek to strengthen trade ties" - well, ok, nice, but hardly something we'd pick up on outside this series of nonsense articles. "President Kibaki receives eight new envoys" - yes, Romania has an ambassador in Nairobi (the very definition of "relations"), but we already know that from List of diplomatic missions of Romania. I couldn't access the allafrica.com links, but if all they tell us is that the two governments have contact, we already know that from the fact they have embassies with each other. (Diplomats don't get paid to do nothing.) What is missing here, as often, is multiple, independent, in-depth coverage of the Kenya-Romania relationship as such. News stories about friendly handshakes and pieces of paper signed can't compensate for that gaping hole. - Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Talking about trade and having a real and reasonably notable agreement are different things. Tourism promotion? Pretty much all govts promote tourism. They don't discriminate between countries they have good relationships with or not. Cuba hates the US, but wants our tourism money. This one is close, but I still don't see the notability. It all looks rather mundane to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my reply to Jayron32; no one has actually cared to document the phenomenon of "Kenya–Romania relations", at least beyond the trivial level, and neither should we. - Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lack of links that (at least those presented do not) address the topic. Normally one expects multiple in-depth sources, or at least one, or at least it should exist in theory. No evidence that somebody wrote a book about this, published a scholarly paper or anything of the kind. ( should go to Tourism in Kenya. The paper in fact talks about the LACK of sufficient relations.) IMHO, does not pass WP:Notability. While large trade is deffinitevely notable, there is no evidence that it existed other than in theory. Dc76\talk 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete. This article exists only by an apparent error: it was PRODDED on March 25, and that tag wasn't removed until April 6, well in excess of of 7 days. So this article should've been deleted on April 1; it's only because an error that we find ourselves going thru the motions of the this AfD. (But if you need a non-procedural argument for deletion, how about the original argument I made when PRODDing: "pointless article; no sources available on this topic; fails WP:N.") Yilloslime T C  21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. And consider this: if it had been deleted by prod, would anyone have ever noticed its absence? I think both sides know the answer to that. - Biruitorul Talk 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking the deletion log, I see that the page was indeed deleted, but then restored per request of User:WilyD. But I still stand by my original rationale for PRODDing. Yilloslime T C  21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The topics of articles included in Wikipedia must be notable and the subject of this one fails WP:NOTE. An article about a small part of something does not make the greater whole notable because notability is not inherited in that manner. (This is a basic principle of notability here at Wikipedia.) Some of the editors appear to be confusing notability of a topic with verifiabilty of facts in an article. Just because some of the facts are verifiable does not mean that the topic is notable. No one has presented any reliable sources actually discussing relations between these two countries as relations between the two countries. Drawn Some (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Ooooh, look, an embassy! And a list of "references" not actually referenced. Well, what's the significance? Why these two over any other two? -- Blue Squadron  Raven  05:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. The references in the article and mentioned above do not support these "relations" as notable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 13 July 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.