Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austria–Egypt 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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austria–Egypt relations

These two countries have a relationship, but as established by plenty of recent AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay relations for example), bilateral relations are not inherently notable. The only additional claim of notability is that the Egyptian President visited the Austrian President, but a) the latter is a figurehead, and the meeting was of largely symbolic significance (see the transcript); moreover, one visit doesn't constitute a notable relationship; b) it's sourced to a propaganda organ. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presidential visits are usually quite staged while the real internation relations work happens behind the scenes. One visit hardly constitutes ongoing independent coverage of the topic. Non-notable compared to other pairs of nations such as Cuba–Pakistan relations or Japan – United States relations. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll give WilyD this one. The academic conferences (and, presumably, the university-level research behind it) with peer-reviewed publication seal it. Of course, someone had better get busy contextualizing some of that into the article itself, with citations, because as it stands we still just have a stub. I also agree some more coverage into the 20th century would do well, as someone noted modern Egypt has only been around since 1922. There's more fish to fry. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - academic conferences on the subject of Austria's relation with Egypt have published no less than four volumes of proceedings. http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/85717//Location/DBBC A field of academic inquiry = WP:N is satisfied that inclusion is sensible. WilyD 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Republic of Austria dates to 1918/45, and modern, independent Egypt dates to 1922; that book deals with the 19th century. Even if there were relations between the Austrian Empire and Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty, the fact that you can't actually provide citations from the book to show that means nothing conclusive is demonstrated by that link. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Not to mention that a single book isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:N Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the fourth volume of a set of peer reviewed papers published from a conference on the subject. This claim is simply false. If a single issue of Nature had multiple papers on a subject, they'd be treated as seperate sources (nevermind that this is the fourth such book). WilyD 11:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have to side with the others here, I'm afraid. The books are not about what this article is about. The article is supposed to be about diplomatic and political bilateral relations between the two modern states. Those conference proceedings seem to be exclusively about cultural relations in earlier periods, when neither of the two states even existed in its present form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to more modern relations, one can look to reliable, independent sources such as [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] that cover their relations from their previous states (Austria is the successor state to Austria Hungary, and Egypt remained the same state too, despite being a British protectorate) around 1880 up until at least 2006. Wily D 13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the usual mix of fairly small trade ties, visits of transitory importance, propaganda outlets, 19th-century stuff, government promotional sites -- if you think you can weave an article from this, I'm certainly not standing in the way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are by rapidfire nominating articles for deletion regardless of their notability, yes. Wily D 14:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The fire isn't all that rapid. 2) I still don't think an article can actually be put together from those disparate bits, but you are free to try. 3) I resent the accusation. Do you see me nominating Cuba–Venezuela relations? Or even, say, German-Hungarian relations, Belgium–Netherlands relations, or Lithuania–Russia relations, which, despite their embryonic state, I happen to know can be expanded substantially? No. So please, enough of these allegations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are any more notable than this. The first two are noticeably less so, in fact. Wily D 21:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please note that the above user has taken to implying some sort of conspiracy theory to delete this article at WP:AN. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably isn't nice to make false claims about me. I said something has to be wrong when multiple users are arguing that a field of academic inquiry is nonnotable, and asked for less biased review. Wily D 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's not nice to make false claims about someone. Since I have not done so, I can't imagine why you bring up that bit of advice. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, WilyD? Right now it's three for and three against, plus the nomination. Hardly a conspiracy. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indications of notability in the article and a Google search doesn't provide sources appropriate to meeting WP:N Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A sampling of the copious references scraped up seem to value quantity over quality, with the none seemingly rising above the 'passing mention' level. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i came to this one after i saw wilyd's note about the "plot" on AN and would like to sign up for the plot to keep unsourced, non-notable bilateral relationships out of Wikipedia. Thanks for the heads up wily.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Doesn't explain why you'd vote delete on an article so notable it is a seperate area of academic inquiry, though. Wily D 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or why you think this is unsourced. Hilary T (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable sources provided by WilyD are enough to establish notability and expand the stub. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources sufficiently establish notability in my opinion.--Dycedarg ж 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These nominations are getting very very WP:TEDIOUS, particularly when Google searches reveals plenty of material which can be used. Being a stub is not reason to delete, and the academic conference sources only show notability, what is needed is someone to be able to get access and include details into the article and nurture it. There are also flights between the two countries - this also demonstrates that there are relations there, firstly because an air service agreement is required to be signed, and secondly, because there are obvious business/tourism ties between the countries involved. And then we have the state visits between Presidents/heads of state - state visits happen for a reason, because there are ties there. Also, has anyone bothered to check for German and Arabic sources on this relationship? --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, countries have established diplomatic relations, needs expansion. feydey (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To add to what others have said above, & by myself elsewhere (i.e. ambassadors prove notability), the University of Vienna has a department of Egyptology [18] which dates to the 1870s, & includes several notable Egyptologists. This points to an important & established cultural connection -- or do the Austrians sneer at tourist-trips to see the Pyramids? -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is valid information for an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Llywrch et al. While not all of these X-Y relations stubs are notable, this one is, at least per WP:HEY. The nomination admits it is notable by one standard. I think a standard should be, Have the heads of state or government had an official state visit? There are also lots of mentions in popular culture. Can you say Aida? Ottoman Empire? Agatha Christie's mysteries? Bearian (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC) See also User:Bearian/Standards#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FX.E2.80.93Y_relations. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't a visit the stuff of news? Sure, we have 1972 Nixon visit to China, but most of these visits have zero lasting impact. And what do a 19th century Italian opera, an empire with its capital in Thrace, and a British novelist have to do with this subject? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the convincing arguments above, see also: Australia–Uruguay relations, Bulgaria–Peru relations Ikip (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Austria, Template:Foreign relations of Egypt, Category:Bilateral relations of Austria, and Category:Bilateral relations of Egypt are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 03:08, 14 April 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.