Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijani-Greek 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani-Greek relations[edit]

Yet another random pairing of countries. A search of google news turns up the usual visits by politicians, trade agreements, etc, but nothing out of the ordinary. Mergellus (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although I normally vote delete for almost all of these random combinations, the Greek government has some interest [1]. they both also have embassies which I wouldn't expect. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first, no secondary sources discuss the relationship; second, what sources do talk about Azerbaijan and Greece involve the usual low-level stuff: "aims to boost relations", agreements to supply gas; energy cooperation memoranda, and the like. To the extent the gas deliveries are notable, mention them in a much more logical location like Nabucco Pipeline. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My work is continuing on this article, there appears to be something here and plenty of secondary sources to prove it. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But more work needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable to speak of. Dahn (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I quote from this source "Due to its important geo-political position and energy resources Azerbaijan is of special interest to Greece". We also have difficulties here, a debate about military cooperation here and this may be worth a look. Smile a While (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the above sources. It is such things as trade agreements and high level visits by politicians that make up international relations. DGG (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But just as we don't record the weekly speeches delivered by and the meetings chaired by the CEO of Microsoft or Wal-mart (companies with budgets larger than many countries'), there's no reason for us to have a record of visiting parliamentary delegations and ambassadorial briefings. Taken out of context and dumped in here for the sake of "expanding" an "article" that no one asked for and the absence of which would never be noticed if it hadn't been created, such snippets abuse the very notion of what an encyclopedia is for. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the sole purposes in deletions is to see if you can't improve the article first. I quote from WP:AFD "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." And as many of these have shown, they can be improved to the point where they are encyclopedic. What makes this article different from others is that there have been high level meetings between the two, visits between heads of states, many trade deals and as Smile a While shows also a military co-operation. That my friend is what bilateral relations are even if they aren't the biggest ones in the world they still fall into the scope of what relations are. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the work made on the article and the source that have surfaced, and as is common with oil-exporting countries and advanced ones to share notable relations.--Aldux (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, anyone who knows about the connections between these two former territories of the Ottoman Empire will know that their historic roots and rivalries are deep. Both countries also have complex relations with Turkey. The article can be improved, but the topic is definitely encyclopaedic--Moloch09 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although they do have historic roots and full embassies in each country, I don't believe it requires an article of it's own. Renaissancee (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM is not a valid rationale. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Moloch09 and also the first source is specifically about the relationship, for at least efforts to improve it! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out a more appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever sources happen to meet WP:GNG here, they are trivia -- news that would never make it into actual articles that editors didn't feel compelled to "expand" artificially. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is your opinion, we can agree to disagree. The point is that the subject is written on, is notable and sourcing exists. Thus this is an article per WP:AFD that should be improved through regular editing. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources present clearly demonstrate the subject meets and exceeds the inclusions standards of WP:N. I see no reason to think this is a highly unusual article that calls for a highly irregular result. Wily D 15:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Secondary sources clearly indicating passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.