Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish-Lebanese 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.  Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Turkish-Lebanese relations

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

POV-y and unreferenced. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the article was nominated less than an hour after it was posted, the question should be whether this topic could be notable at all, rather than the current content. Based on my review, I find this bit of information which, by itself, is evidence to me of a significant relationship: "Lebanon has become one of Turkey’s rising trade partners. The trade volume between our countries has recorded a remarkable 76 percent increase just last year, pushing the $1 billion mark. Furthermore, the increase in our bilateral trade since 2005 is an astonishing 454 percent. That is, trade between Turkey and Lebanon has quadrupled within the last four years. Moreover, bilateral investments also constitute an important dimension of our commercial relations."  Perhaps it would have been better to have composed this in user space first, as opposed to starting it and then working on it as time permits (I'm assuming that Colchester, as with most of us, has a busy schedule); on the other hand, perhaps it would have been better to wait a little bit longer before nominating this, unless it was an unacceptable topic.  Author has seven days or so to improve this, and I hope that he/she shall do so. Mandsford (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Waiting for someone to look for references. A plausible topic, given the history. Edison (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are two reasons given for deletion, and they are neither of them valid reasons: "POVy" is merely a matter for editing--I've never even seen that actually given as a reason at AfD before-- and "unreferenced" is not a reason, just unreferenceable.  Blind searching of the exact phrase in an article title like this is not a good faith effort to meet WP:BEFORE. Given they are practically adjacent, and were once part of the same country, there can certainly be presumed to be references. DGG (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * In addition to !vote above, Move to Lebanon-Turkey relations according to the naming convention that we go by (i.e., names of the two nations, in alphabetical order). Mandsford (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as above. These are two countries that are going to have relations between them, not just some illogical pairing nobody in their right mind would consider. Agree with the above poster too re: the rename. Problems with POV, etc. can be handled with editing. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a legitimate article on the relations between two countries with plenty of historical, geographical, political, and cultural overlap. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This could potentially become an interesting and somewhat important article. But I also agree with the rename suggested above. Fleerz (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. They're almost next to each other. What was the nominator thinking? There's loads of news reports stretching back decades about their relations. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of those rare X-Y relations articles that actually makes sense to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of quality of article now (i havent checked it thoroughly so i dont know), they assuredly have a history of relations worthy of a good article. rename if that is the protocol for articles like this. understandably brought here, considering the number of potential articles in this series. hey, how about a set of articles on each of the possible combinations of trilateral relations (hehehe)?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:59, 17 August 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.