Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong–Israel 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong–Israel relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. whilst relations exist they are not extensive. A 1 off visit by an Israeli politician, one agreement and a donation by a hong kong billionaire LibStar (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All diplomatic and commercial relations between Israel and other countries is significant. Much more can be added to improve the article if anyone takes the time. There are plenty of reliable sources for the information that is already there. No reason whatsoever to delete. --Geewhiz (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now have a look at the material I have added and think again about whether this topic is insignificant. There have been several diplomatic visits (not one) and the economic ties are growing, including a new direct flight between the countries. According to a Hong Kong official, Israelis make up the largest share of tourists from the Middle East. There are plenty of articles on wiki that should be deleted, but not this one.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are arguing bilateral relations are inherently notable. This is certainly not true. The relations are extremely limited. What is required is significant coverage. These are reasons for deletion. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree that all, or nearly all, diplomatic relations between countries are notable. Even if the the relations are limited (and, ignoring the fact that they could become notable, as per WP:TOOSOON), they are still relations between two sovereign powers. Big players, in this case. I know Hong Kong isn't really sovereign, but you know what I mean. This is especially notable, as there are a lot of countries that do not recognize Isreal, so I think any country that does is important to include. This is not just any bilateral and such relations...it is relations with a country that does not have that many to begin with. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

again bilateral relations are not inherently notable. Secondly you have provided no argument to establish how WP:N is met. Merely WP:ITSNOTABLE. "Big players"?? This article is about their relationship which is limited at best. LibStar (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that notability is inherent, in that they are bilateral relations. I think all diplomatic relations are important, regardless of where and between which nations. For example, I think History of [[country name]] for any country would be notable, even if the country itself is not notable or the history isn't particularly special. Maybe I'm wrong about diplomatic relations, but I don't really see how that is any different. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have external sources. Even if it's not extensive coverage, it's still coverage enough. If the sources are correct, then "Israel is Hong Kong's largest visitor source market in the Middle East" -- which, to me, seems notable enough. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

again there is no inherent notability. I would say over 100 bilateral Articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then I'll change my tune. I thought they were all inherently notable. However, I am still concerned that Israel is the largest visitor source from the Middle East for Hong Kong. I do think that is notable. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2016 (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.