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.
Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy
WP:N. tempodivalseÂ
[☎] 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - They are formerly part of the USSR. This article can be improved easily. --Turkish Flame☎ 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Just because they were both part of the USSR doesn't necessarily make their current relations notable. tempodivalseÂ
[☎] 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is
not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails
notability as well.
Edison (
talk) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - that the two were part of the USSR is documented at
Republics of the Soviet Union; nothing else seems to make theirs a notable relationship (which is unsurprising - the Baltics and Central Asia were as far apart as you could get in the USSR, and have little in common with one another). -
BiruitorulTalk 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, a search of google news archives turns up the kind of boring news stories you would expect to see about two former members of the Soviet Union, but nothing else. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS.
All In Order (
talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep or re-direct and merge into
Foreign relations of Estonia. If relations between these two countries are not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists
relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing.
Martintg (
talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
According to
this, the entire CIS minus Russia accounts for 2.5% of Estonian exports and 3% of imports, so Kazakhstan can't be that notable a partner. And that sort of agreement is a)
thoroughly routine b) not really enough to build an article out of - if really notable, a list can be snuck into
Economy of Estonia. -
BiruitorulTalk 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Not thoroughly routine; there are a number of countries that do not have such a treaty with Estonia. As a rule of thumb, double taxation avoidance treaties are done when there's a significant number of people who do business in both countries -- so existence of such a treaty is an indicator towards notability of the relations.
ΔιγουÏενΕμπÏος! 05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
There are two problems with that line of reasoning. First, the fact that they have such a treaty is essentially trivia, and not something an article could ever be written about. Second, there's a
WP:SYNTH issue here. Nowhere has anyone found a source specifically dealing with "Estonia-Kazakhstan relations"; rather, you have found a fact and decided it constitutes evidence of notable relations. That's not how this should work. -
BiruitorulTalk 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Is this not a
source?. Note that bi-lateral treaties themselves are sufficient notable for an article about the treaty.
Martintg (
talk) 21:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete As per the above, and per similar arguments I've made in other such AfDs. It may not be entirely random (though I wanna bet it started on a dare), but it's entirely non-notable, and complete overkill for an article that cannot in itself provide any relevant info. Whatever trivia could be added to the original stub only brings the article down,and underlines that it serves no real purpose.
Dahn (
talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --
BlueSquadronRaven 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per Digwuren. --
Miacek(t) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete no notability established for this relationship or establishable by me.
Bali ultimate (
talk) 20:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion
[1]. Given that some bilateral agreement exists, there is scope for future development. So even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time there is scope for future expansion, the existence of such a bi-lateral agreement should at least qualify that article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. The Estonian MFA indicates such a bilateral agreement exists or is in the precess of being drafted, so at the very least this article should be merged and a re-directed retained to
Foreign relations of Estonia.
Martintg (
talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as
All In Order.
Uncle G (
talk) 15:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes
WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. This includes the double taxation agreement. --
Hans Adler (
talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per my standards - both were parts of the
USSR, have some trade, etc.
Bearian (
talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)reply
We do have an article on
Republics of the Soviet Union if someone wants to know about their both being part of the USSR. And the fact that they have "some trade" (which as I showed, is pretty negligible overall) means nothing if its significance to this relationship is not corroborated by independent sources, which hasn't happened. -
BiruitorulTalk 01:22, 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.