Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenya–Turkey 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 no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

=[[Kenya–Turkey relations]]=

:{{la|Kenya–Turkey relations}} ([{{fullurl:Kenya–Turkey relations|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenya–Turkey relations}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

hardly a notable relationship. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkey_s-political-relations-with-republic-of-kenya.en.mfa LibStar (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - the relationship does barely more than exist, and that alone is not enough to be notable. - Biruitorul Talk 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - like most bilateral relations, more than meets the standards of WP:N. I see no reason to treat this as a highly irregular case. See [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F97DC42C6EE9645&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM][http://www.bdafrica.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9036&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=5813][http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/336817.stm][http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=52014][http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=53483] - Turkey is leveraging its relationship with Kenya to enhance its status in Africa, and gain access to African markets, while Turkey is an important market for Kenyan goods and a major investor in Kenya's economy. I wouldn't have guessed it. WilyD 13:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • First, Turkey's trade ties with all of Africa are $12 billion, which isn't too much out of a GDP of $937 billion. Still, it's not nothing, but since the Kenya-Turkey relationship is basically an economic one, why not cover trade with Kenya and other African partners at Economy_of_Turkey#External_trade_and_investment? Seems much more logical than this artificial exercise. - Biruitorul Talk 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Err, that's backwards compared to what I said. But it is not about Turkey, or about Kenya, but about how they inter-relate. Hence an article to cover how they inter-relate. WilyD 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The inter-relationship only intersects in notable fashion at the economic level, and thus can be covered elsewhere, both eliminating a stub that is bound not to grow beyond the trivial, and adhering to WP:PI. - Biruitorul Talk 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Like most bilateral relations..." You been asleep lately? --BlueSquadronRaven 16:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The only thing established in this "relationship" is that the two countries are aware of each other. Dahn (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely unsourced article, no assertion of notability. I can find no sources that might establish notability for this article.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I fully agree with WilyD. --Turkish Flame ☎ 00:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, we have already established there is a notable economic relationship, now the only question is where to discuss it, which is not a deletion issue. Process is important, people. TheWilyFox (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Further reading: "Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited Kenya recently where he and his Kenyan counterpart Mwai Kibaki witnessed the signing of a visa abolition agreement for holders of diplomatic passports." [http://www.neurope.eu/articles/93366.php] TheWilyFox (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. As usual, stated "sources" indicate events, or economics, not diplomacy, or highly staged appearances. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Precisely. Also, gathering together disparate bits of news and proclaiming "notable relationship!" is a violation of WP:SYNTH - we need multiple sources studying the relationship as such, not one Wikipedian's opinion that various news reports put together constitute evidence of a notable relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 19:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the research WilyD has performed. Deleting this article would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What WilyD uncovered are bits of trivia he considers constitute notable features of the relationship; there are no sources documenting the relationship as such, and without those, we have a WP:SYNTH breach. - Biruitorul Talk 22:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd hardly consider them "bits of trivia", they all fit together with a minimum of syntactical interpreting: Turkey wants to build up a market in Africa & started in Kenya -- links 1 & 2. This is not just something Turkey was talking about, but actually took steps to accomplish -- links 3 & 4. The last link is that this relationship is still ongoing. I find no WP:SYNTH here. -- llywrch (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, your perspective is a different one, but it still seems to me that no source deems the relationship itself worthy of study and that for us to pick what we consider notable about the relationship constitutes synthesis. Additionally, a) there's probably scope under Economy of Turkey for discussing this; b) consider whether we would ever be interested in this material for its own sake, or whether this is even being considered as notable in order to "fill in" this article. - Biruitorul Talk 05:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • a) Yes, & there's also probably scope under Economy of Kenya to discuss this -- your point is? b) Who cares about motivation if it leads to an article with useful content? -- llywrch (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • a) My point is simply that it may well be possible to structure this more intelligently by working on those articles. b) Merely the manner of an article's creation is indeed not reason for deletion, but it can provide insight: without the mass-production, it's doubtful anyone would have felt the need to bring this up, because it is, if not trivia outright, then at least something that can be handled a little differently. - Biruitorul Talk 06:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

: the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

:*The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations/Bilateral_relations_task_force&diff=285766753&oldid=285588746]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

: the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

: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.