Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Kenya 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, Nakon 05:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Kenya relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

whilst these 2 countries have embassies in each other, surely any notable material could be covered in Foreign relations of Canada or Foreign relations of Kenya. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until there is a chance to properly look for sources. Some of these pairs have turned out to be notable, and i would presume that for a Dominion and a major former colony, there would be quite a bit to say. yes, they shouldn't have been created as stubs, but then they shouldn't have been nominated without searching DGG (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - true, Canada gives (or gave, according to the link in the article) some money to Kenya, but so do lots of other countries. Nothing particularly special about this relationship, it seems, and the embassies (actually High Commissions) are covered in the respective "Diplomatic missions of..." articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article suggests notability to me. TastyCakes (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • While the Canadian government provides lots of information useful in writing an article, independent sources are usually used to demonstrate notability. WilyD 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable in the usual way. No argument presented that this is a highly unusual case that needs a highly irregular result. See [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] et al. WilyD 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the articles thus far found by WilyD assert the significance of the Canada/Kenya relationship on the world stage. Indeed, it seems mostly lopsided in favour of Kenya. One of the articles doesn't relate specifically to Kenya but to Africa as a whole. One other doesn't even seem to mention Canada. Fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So something that's only important in Canada and Africa is not important enough to be covered in Wikipedia? WilyD 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the fact that the Vice President has to urge Canada to increase her bilateral engagement to Kenya [9] shows that the relationship is non-notable. Thus, merge and delete per nom. MyDog22 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything this actually establish the relationship is notable, not all relationships have to be friendly and relationships where a partner is feeling let down by the other country sounds like it can establish notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Updating article now with some of the sources given by WillyD and others I have found. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There have been several notable things happening between these two countries, which are clearly referenced. Dream Focus 00:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AFTER and notability shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as yet another random pair of countries that nothing has been written about. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you reconcile this assertion with the large amount of material written about their relationship? WilyD 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: References in the article now establish notability: the standards "the significance of the Canada/Kenya relationship on the world stage" or references saying that the relationship should be strengthened some how makes the topic "non-notable" just do not reflect the notability guideline. In a nutshell, the guideline requires third party independent reputable sources giving coverage which "is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." WP:N also states "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself". I don't see any evidence of this happening with ANY of these mass deletions. That should be reason enough to tag them with a Notability tag and close these AfDs. T L Miles (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as the user states above me this article has now establish notability and it seems Kenya and Canada do have some amount of a notable relationship. Cheers Kyle1278 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above should be disregarded as per Wikipedia:NOREASON#Just_a_vote. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And above should also be disregarded as it comes from an essay, not a policy. Please see WP:NONO. Note the previous sentence ALSO violates WP:NONO, and comes from an essay... T L Miles (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the usual reasons - reliable sources are in the article (at least right now), both are members of the British Commonwealth, Canada gave foreign aid to Kenya - then cut it off and later gave more, high-level contacts, etc. See my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 20 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.