Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–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 keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Romania relations

Azerbaijan–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:NOTABILITY is not established. PMK1 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • But this refers to Azerbaijan-Romania relations, what does Argentina have to do with it? --Susan118 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As you've correctly surmised, it has nothing to do with it-- the request for help with an Argentina article has been pasted onto most of the relations discussions regardless of which two nations are being talked about. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - at first I was mildly excited by this (although puzzled by the laudatory tone); then I realised it was a press release from the Azeri embassy. No independent sources are forthcoming. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - They are both members of Council of Europe, and several Black Sea-related organizations.--Turkish Flame ^☎ 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- I'm not sure there needs to be a separate article for relations between every country in the world. Is there something significant about the relationship between these two countries? --Susan118 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - sourcing absent (likely for perpetuity), non-notable topic by any account. And no, "country A and country B both belong to organization C" is not a relevant argument, and it only serves to create a slippery slope to Krazy Cat and Eek! are both cats. Dahn (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep While sourcing is absent -- no surprise, considering the source -- there's certainly evidence of a notable and ongoing relationship, as seen on a "azerbaijan+and+romania"&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en| news search. What I see is
• 2000 military cooperation agreement;
• 2003 cooperative agreement;
• 2004 visit by President Aliyev to Romania where they signed 11 agreements;
• 2007 energy discussion;

Anyway, a lot more here than in the usual random pairing. So far, those Groubanis are mostly chaff, but sometimes there's some wheat. Mandsford (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Foreign relations of Romania by country and Foreign relations of Azerbaijan by country, taking 20,000 bilateral articles down to about 200 articles, one for each sovereign nation. Edison (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, then, that Russia–United States relations should be replaced by a mention in Foreign relations of Russia and Foreign relations of the United States? Your proposal is a good idea for cases where two nations don't really have anything notable going on between them. Sometimes, however, two nations have a notable bilateral relationship, and people want to read more about it than existing articles can accomodate. Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Just enough here given above to justify an article. DGG (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this unsourced stub. I find no articles on my own that discuss this relationship or otherwise demonstrate it's a notable relationship. The links above are about trivial, non-notable events.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

the signing of a treaty is not a trivial event, nor is a state visit. DGG (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I came here thinking "oh go" another pair of random countries, however, Mandsford's sources are enough for me [1] in particular. HJMitchell You rang? 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep some coverage found when I excluded Eurovision and football. and this article demonstrates notability. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder there are more articles up for deletion that can use more Google searching and more references added and they are here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

how is the above comment related to this AfD? If it was meant for me, please post on my talk page. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No coverage of the article topic to establish the notability of the relations. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep based on additional material that establishes notability for this article. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note. I've just finished major expansion to the article. It cites 11 separate references all to WP:RS, at least one of the articles listed covers the relationship "in depth", there have been state visits and over 50 bilateral agreements. With the greatest respect to the editors who have voted to delete, I believe it now meets the WP:GNG. That said, I would welcome any constructive criticism and any further sources anybody might have to offer. HJMitchell You rang? 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep based on expansion by User:HJ Mitchell - clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of sources to easily meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 17:11, 16 May 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.