Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentine–Turkish relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argentine–Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
whilst the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations. the first 70 of this seems almost entirely multilateral [1]. the only commonality is that they both seem to have had economic problems. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Since Turkey are embroiled in the Armenian genocide debacle, I'm sure all states have had something to say and so formed dialogues and discussions with the country. Make sure to keep it in mind before nominating other Turkey relations articles. Here's news of the Turkey-Argentina relations on the genocide, or "genocide" if you're so inclined: [2]. And the two countries have widespread nuclear relations, with no less than 6 cites here: [3]. Rafablu88 13:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argentina's view on the genocide can easily be covered in this article Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. doesn't 3 or 4 of those 6 cites actually come from 1 source? LibStar (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but there's still a plethora of info left in the links, and notable info at that. Rafablu88 13:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @747 · 16:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @747 · 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there are long-standing, significant relations between these two countries. There is sufficient coverage to make a worthwhile article and to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Yet another in a long line of non-notable X-Y relations articles. Zero notabilty asserted in the article, zero notability to be found. Tarc (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zero notability? What exactly do you expect of X-Y relations articles? Mutual nuclear annihilation at some point in the history? This now has the key areas of bilateralism: diplomatic links and incidents, economic ties and trade agreements, and more importantly, deep-lying nuclear assistance (not many X-Y have those). Rafablu88 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect meaningful substance with in-depth, significant coverage by reliable sources. Certainly they don't have to all rise to the level of, say, Japan – United States relations, but if all you can say about X-Y is that they have embassies, signed a few agreements and rattle off some trade figures, the relationship really isn't notable enough for an article. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So a nuclear agreement between 1988-2003 is not meaningful enough? A nuclear reactor deal, eventually rescinded, that was discussed at the UN is not meaningful, too? Rafablu88 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that can be inferred from what I just said, yes. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So a nuclear agreement between 1988-2003 is not meaningful enough? A nuclear reactor deal, eventually rescinded, that was discussed at the UN is not meaningful, too? Rafablu88 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect meaningful substance with in-depth, significant coverage by reliable sources. Certainly they don't have to all rise to the level of, say, Japan – United States relations, but if all you can say about X-Y is that they have embassies, signed a few agreements and rattle off some trade figures, the relationship really isn't notable enough for an article. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hesitate to use the term inherently notable, but I think that world diplomacy probably is. Keep Irbisgreif (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep another in the long line of notable articles. Treaties and embassies are notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. So they've done business. So they've done the pedestrian things that governments do with each other. That doesn't say notable to me. Notable means something beyond the ordinary, otherwise notable would mean ordinary. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One nation has its leaders officially declare a day to remember the mass murder of another, in the Armenian Genocide, then that is notable between them. The other items add to their notability as well. Dream Focus 11:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - understandable nom, but the article has been substantially improved by Rafablu88 . Another source as just been added , which though titled Turkish Community in Buenos Aires actually goes into some depth about the overall bilarteral relationship. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:17, 18 August 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.