Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Israeli 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.  

Kurdish-Israeli relations
The result was delete. I am making the decision to delete this article because "relations" articles are clearly only for country-to-country diplomatic relations. While the Kurds are a definitive people group, they are not actually a country. I note also that there is some precedent here for deleting similar articles - as pointed out by User:White Cat, see Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Chinese relations. Therefore, I am deleting this article. There might be scope for another article that deals with the way in which Kurds and Israeli cultures relate with each other. However, before creating such an article, I would strongly suggest that the purpose of the article be spelt out in the lead section so everyone knows the article's scope. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As per same reasons on Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Chinese relations. Intended scope on "A-B relation" articles are diplomatic relations as it is with Turkish-American relations, Franco-American relations and etc. Kurds fortunately/unfortunately do not own a country and hence cannot have diplomatic relations with other countries. Same WP:OR and WP:NOT concerns as before. Article (stub) also seems to be forking Origins of the Kurds and Kurdish Jews. Article makes claims that may not be shared by a vast majority. -- Cat chi? 10:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is Kurdish-Armenian relations here on wiki and also Kurdish-Turkish relations.
 * Of course they dont have their own country, but what does it have to do with your interest in deleting the article?
 * Do you see any political relations in the article?
 * I am writing history and trying to bound the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurgin (talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "A-B relations" are for diplomatic relations only, which are political relations. From my perspective I see a random list of unrelated events seemingly involving Kurdish and Israeli people, the connection alone may be disputed. No, we do not have a Kurdish-Turkish relations. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor way to construct an argument. WP:NOT. -- Cat chi? 11:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the title is bad, but I'm not sure whether to move it (to what?) and tag it for cleanup, or to delete it. I favor the former by default, to see if the article can develop. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't that be covered under the relevant title History of the Kurdish people. These pieces of entries can be covered on relevant articles. Establishing an Israeli - Kurdish relationships like this is the definition of OR. We do not need an article for inter-ethnic relationships. Imagine articles on African-American-Asian-American relations... -- Cat chi? 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep:I think the Kurds warrant having "A-B relations" articles. Firstly, they have an autonomous region which seems to develop direct diplomatic type relations with other countries. Secondly, in some of the countries where they live which haven't been defined as autonomous regions, they have political parties and rebel groups. Thirdly, for this particular article, there is plenty of news about Israel and Iranian Kurds and this could be used to beef up the article. Example . Pocopocopocopoco 01:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, autonomous regions do not have the authority to have diplomatic relations unlike sovereign  countries. A good portion of US-Chinese relations is really California-China relations but California has to use Washington just as KRG has to use Baghdad. KRG is not even a part of Iran so rest of your argument fails with that. The news article talks about alleged covert actions by the Israeli intelligence. These are not diplomatic relations in any sense. A diplomatic relation is conducted openly and publicly between two countries that recognize each other mutually and not covertly. I believe Israel denies the allegations of such a connection. If there is an alleged support by Israel to a Kurdish separatist group why can't that info be presented on the separatist groups own article? -- Cat chi? 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not always the case. The Aland Islands can develop direct relations with Sweden. To be honest, I haven't looked at Iraqi Kurdistan close enough to know if it's a similar model but I do know that other countries form "liason offices" in Iraqi Kurdistan. For example . As for the Iranian Kurds, I believe "A-B relations" articles should be permitted for them because they have rebel groups as well as political parties and pressure groups. Pocopocopocopoco 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are not diplomatic relations and "A-B relations" are exclusively for notable diplomatic relations between two countries. I do want to point out that we do not have articles on diplomatic relations between every single country. Only countries can have diplomatic relations. I know nothing about the level of autonomy Åland has but I do not believe it can enter NATO or sign international treaties on it's own. I do not believe anyone claims Åland to be a country - including themselves. -- Cat chi? 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Which policy is there that states that "A-B relation" must be countries? I think that possible articles that are notable and interesting could be Hizbollah-Al Qaeda relations Al Qaeda-Taliban relations and Hamas-Hizbollah relations. If you want official country relation articles to be distinguished between non-official country or hybrid (official-non) then suggest a different naming convention for these other type of articles. Pocopocopocopoco 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Current practice is that A-B relations must be countries, yes - see linked past AFD. Not every country has such articles as not all relations between counties are article worthy. Furthermore Kurdistan is not even a non-official country like Republic of China (RoC claims to be a country). Non-official countries are fine, Kurdistan isn't one (does not claim to be a country). Relationship between organizations such as "PKK-Hezbollah" or your examples is also fine (Kurdish is not an "organization" while PKK is). It might be better to call it something else than a "relation" to avoid confusion. Inter-ethnic relations are too problematic to venture into for more obvious reasons. -- Cat chi? 10:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - despite Cool Cat's unending quest to make sure that nothing Kurdish is ever mentioned in the encyclopedia, this is notable for the fact that the relationship between Kurds and Israel differs from the relationship between almost all other nearby groups (e.g., Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc.). The Evil Spartan 00:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed my username. Please refer to me with the current one.
 * This notable fact is not a diplomatic relationship and hence the very point of the nomination. Random list of unrelated historic events are not helpful. If this was about Native Americans, or African Americans, I would have made an identical nomination.
 * Just because I suggest something does not make it automatically wrong. Such an approach is disruptive. Discuss the topic at hand and not the contributor.
 * -- Cat chi? 00:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The name "Kurdish-Israeli relations" does not have to necessarily relate to countries. In fact, the name to me looks like this article outlines the relations between two peoples: the Kurdish people and the Israeli people. There may be differing circumstances in which those two peoples are peoples, but there can be a relationship nonetheless. MessedRocker (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In current syntax on wikipedia they do. Please check the country examples. While it is true that there are lots of relations between every ethnicity in this global world (a Kurd and Israeli can marry for example) covering such relationships among ethnicities in dedicated articles is however problematic. Consider an article on African-American-Asian-American or Asian-American-British relationship.
 * It is more than fine as I mentioned above to cover this material in the form of Mossad-KDP / Mossad-PKK relations at Mossad, KDP, and PKK articles or seperate articles if there is no room on them. This article talks about a relationship between Israelis and Kurds as a whole.
 * In its current state this article fails to meet WP:OR as there is even material synthesized based on the bible. The article is at best like Kurdish-Chinese relations, a collection of random unrelated historic events.
 * -- Cat chi? 10:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument about Asian American-British relations makes no sense. Asian-Americans are not an ethnic group they consist of many different Asian ethnicitys, grouped all in one. While Kurds are an ethnic group. VartanM 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why are they covered under "Race · Ethnicity · Ancestry" in Template:Demographics of the United States? It is certainly a selective group of people who definitely had some relationship with the United States and/or some other country. Of course this "relationship" did not apply to every Asian American. Such relationships are better of covered on the respective articles. -- Cat chi? 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still makes no sense, you are comparing apples with oranges. Even if you compared Korean-Americans, it wouldn't work. You see X-American is a subgroup. Kurds are not a sub-groupVartanM 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * x-american is as much of an ethnicity as Kurdish people. You are right it makes no sense to write such relation articles. Hence the nom. -- Cat chi? 16:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Kurds are not a sub-group. You might see them as such, but they have an ethnicity of their own. Korean-American Israeli relations would make no sense but Korean-Israeli would. And you're still comparing apples to oranges. I suggest you to find another example, because this one is going to stick. --VartanM 17:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Korea and Israel are both countries. Well Korea is two countries. Their diplomatic relations of course makes sense. Kurds are as much as a "sub group" (whatever that is) as Korean-Americans. They may have an ethnicity of their own, which is a cultural concept. This article does not cover any culture related interaction whatsoever. It does cover alleged covert operations by Mossad. -- Cat chi? 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the content of the article you should discuss it in the talkpage not nominate it for deletation. VartanM 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not like the concept of the article. It suffers heavily on WP:NOT and WP:OR. -- Cat chi? 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep I don't know of any wikipedia policy that forbids to have articles about Kurdish relations. It's obvious that this afd was done in bad faith. VartanM 03:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious to me that this AFD is in bad faith. I don't agree with it, but it wasn't done in bad faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification from closing admin. Having rereviewed the purpose of "xyz-abc relations" style articles, I do agree with the nominator. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep into Foreign relations of Israel. Foreign relations of Israel has main to Turkey-Israel relations, Germany-Israel relations, etc. No reason Kurdistan should be any different.--Victor falk 10:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentAs for Kurdistan not having diplomatic relations, this is false: consulates function as diplomatic missions. Kurdish-relations are very notable, with reports of Israeli activity/presence, etc.--Victor falk 10:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which definition of Kurdistan are you referring to? Kurdistan is not a country (at least not according to KRG authorities) and you just implied it to be one. That falls under WP:OR and WP:NOT. There ale lots of consulates in the US outside of Washington such as in Callifornia. They take care of issues such as visas and etc. They do not sign international treaties or agreements of any kind. In the case of Iraq diplomatic traffic has to go through Baghdad. In the case of US diplomatic traffic has to go through Washington. -- Cat chi? 12:19, 1 October 2007 (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.