Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlands-Kazakhstan 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. With the nominator agreeing that the article needs improvement rather than deletion, I'm closing this Afd as a keep. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  05:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands-Kazakhstan relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't credibly claim to meet standards set by WikiProject International relations Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 04:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

— BrotmeisterB (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep as the article itself says, the Netherlands is one of Kazakhstan's most important trading partners; 50% of foreign direct investment in Kazakhstan begins in the Netherlands. There are plenty of sources documenting this relationship including, , , and others.--TM 10:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this entry meets the the standards set by WikiProject International relations as the two countries are engaged in significant trade. It is well documented that the Netherlands is the largest foreign direct investor in Kazakhstan.--User:BrotmeisterB 13:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment then I would recommend that this important information be included in the article. It was only two sentence long when I nominated it, making no mention of trade . It is only two sentences long right now, making generalized mention of trade. I do believe there is potential for a substantive article, this is just not up to form yet. Would love to see it improve! Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 20:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Correction misremembered article.Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 20:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You nominated it barely two hours after it started. Are you familiar with WP:BEFORE? It seems as though neither C nor D were followed.--TM 02:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it was ~4 hours, although could be wrong?. Familiar with WP:Before, and you make a fair point about C and D. Like I said I would love to see it improve. I wanted discussion, that's why I didn't WP:Prod it initially. It has been amended since the AfD, but minimally. I felt like the article fundamentally failed to include notability details set by WikiProject International relations. Almost any bilateral relationship between countries will yeild a fairly decent amount of search results. For example there would ideally be a Guyana–United Kingdom relations, given their extensive history, but it doesn't exist yet. Sorry don't meet to bite,. I would be happy to work with you through the AfC process! Best, Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 05:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I didn't think the requirement was to populate the bulk of an article within the first few edits of its creatin. And I don't think that's what you're suggesting but either way I think we can agree now. Also upon further read, the list WikiProject International relations are suggestions and not requirements. There are many other facts that legitimize a formal bilateral relationship between two countries. This list should be WikiProject International relations or emphasized that its a suggested list of standards, not required. Buy these standards, may US Relations pages don't meet the threshold, like San_Marino–United_States_relations or Madagascar–United_States_relations. No unique alliance. No significant trade. No disputes. No shared boarder. By the measure of these standards, these many Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States pages should be recommended for deletion. There is much bias towards US relations and discounting on the bilateral relations of other countries IMO. --BrotmeisterB (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. In fact I've just nominated the San Marino one for deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * weak Keep third party sources are weak, but the direct foreign investment and existence of embassies for both countries just passes the mark for notability. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems this AfD discussion is concluded. --BrotmeisterB (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2017 (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.