Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan–Philippines 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 delete. Secret ^account 21:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan–Philippines relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. could not find any indepth coverage of these relations. most of the article is based on the Kazakh honorary consulate website. neither country has a resident ambassador, trade is low at USD$7.3 million, and sure 7,000 Filipinos work in Kazakhstan but that's a tiny proportion of the 9.4 million Overseas Filipinos. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here's a source, albeit a short one at 225 words total (it's also paywalled): Kazakhstan, Philippines sign friendship, tourism, visa accords. Khabar Television, Almaty - November 11, 2003. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be honest, I don't get what makes a international relations notable. Is there any consensus on what makes an article, specifically articles tackling bilateral relations, notable to have a standalone article. I've seen articles were country A and country B had embassies but without significant exchanges. If the consensus is to delete this article, please merge the contents with the Foreign relations of the Philippines and the Foreign relations of Kazakhstan articles. When the Bahamas–Philippine relations article, I created was deleted due to notability issues. None of the contents was merged with the main foreign relation countries of both countries, thus all information in it were lost.--Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

: when a decision is made to delete content is not retained. There is nothing stopping you adding content to foreign relations articles now. Regards LibStar (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's very difficult to see why this subject should be considered notable. It's clearly very minor; there are few sources; the countries plainly have no special interest in each other, so this must be close to the bottom of the vast list of possible bilateral relationship articles. Common sense and simple facts (lack of ambassadors, etc) says this is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Okay, please delete this article. But a clearer guideline on similar articles is much appreciated--Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination seems based on personal assessments: that USD$7.3 million of trade and 7.000 Filipinos working in Kazakhstan are irrelevant is kind of a weird notion. In general, IMHO bilateral relations are always intrinsically notable, and they can be almost always sourced reliably. Even the very fact that the relationship is factually trivial (not this case necessarily) is an interesting information to the reader, while the absence of the article does not imply so: it just leaves the reader in the dark. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to suppose that bilateral relations are intrinsically notable. On the contrary, on occasions like this, the inherent "factually trivial" nature of the pairing - you are right there - speaks clearly of non-notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to suppose that bilateral relations are intrinsically notable. - I disagree. To me, the "what has country X to do with country Y?" is a quintessentially encyclopedic/gazeteer question (and our first pillar says: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.), and this is independent on the answer: even when the answer is "nothing", it is informative. The absence of the article instead gives no information in each sense. You're free to disagree of course. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As creator of this article, I want to keep this article but of course my personal desire does not strengthen moves in favor in keep. There isn't a clear guideline, I reiterate. Examples of bilateral relations article that may be deleted, given the arguments for the deletion of this articles; Monaco–United States relations, Fiji–Russia relations (also with notability issues), Mauritius–Russia relations, China–Grenada relations, Grenada–Libya relations. I believe there seems to be bias on relations between minor powers,in this case the Philippines and Kazakhstan.--Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a kind of argument known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and it does not necessarily have ground (In fact, you probably just gave Libstar a list of a few more article to nominate at AfD). I honestly agree with you that we have no guideline on the topic and that this looks like a case of systemic bias. We tried discussing a guideline on bilateral relationships a couple years ago, but AFAIK nothing came out of the discussion. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the question here is not about notability but about whether this kind of article is encyclopedic. It's not about whether the information should be published, but about where it is published. My view is that the material should be in articles about the foreign relations of the Kazakhstan and Philippines — where the reader will expect to find them, not obscure and virtually unfindable pages like this one. --Klein zach 02:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a merge !vote. I'd be fine with it, if information is preserved. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a half and half merge vote if you like. Not sure what you call that! Klein zach 00:37, 20 June 2013 (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.