Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek-Kazakh 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. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Kazakh relations

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

not much of a relationship, 3 state visits in 17 years, only a few minor agreements, and a complete lack of third party coverage (except for sport) [1]. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd just like to point out that Greece–Kazakhstan relations is a redirect to Foreign relations of Greece. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It probably was a redirect when the comment was made, but the redirect has been undone. Although we had a problem with Groubani-articles earlier this year, I'm all in favor of building an article when there is evidence of a building relationship. In addition to the visits between the leaders of the two nations, there are other factors that show the forging of ties. From the Greek source: (1) There are between 10,000 and 12,000 ethnic Greeks living in Kazakhstan and there are 17 communities identified in the former Soviet republic. (2) Greece grants scholarships totaling about 100,000 to Kazakh citizens who want to study at Greek academic institutes, and Greece funds teaching of the language at two Kazakh universities. From the Kazakh source: The two nations have a Kazakhstan-Greek Committee on the economic and technological cooperation that was established by an agreement signed in 2001. Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A young but growing relationship. Sport coverage might provide notability. Nominator's assertion that international agreements are "minor" (the implication being that they and the relationship is not notable) betrays a POV. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide evidence of significant third party coverage of a "growing relationship? otherwise that's POV on your part. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, we are all entitled to our own POV when it comes to making an argument in this forum. Having it in articles, of course, is a different matter entirely. But the nominator is not "betraying" a point of view, he is expressing it. And (no evidence needed) so is Cdog. And so am I. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article on an important and growing relationship, originally created by the legendary visionary Groubani. Several sources have been added, admitedly not all secondary , but with these articles there is a strong IAR case to keep even if all dont agree that noteability is established according to the general guidelines. Specific X-Y ilateral relations are of accademic interest and of practical importance in many ways, e.g. to companies trading between the two countries, or for organisers of international summits and other events. So even if we were only collating primary sources (and we go beyond that here) the articles could be of great value. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments above are quite convincing. If one nation gives 100,000 scholarships to the citizens of another nation, that's a notable relation! This article has potential. Dream Focus 02:39, 26 November 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.