Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benin–Russia 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 -- consensus in this discussion has defined the notability of the subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benin–Russia relations

Non-notable bilateral embassies, only few searches from Google news. [1] ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual notability is evident. Not even a junior water polo match. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a history lesson should be required before nominating such articles, because it is getting just a tad bit ridiculous. Whilst there might not be a junior water polo match, there is the fact that the USSR was Kerekou's major ally in the international arena...Marxist-Leninism and all that. My f'ing god, whilst it ain't no junior water polo match, I do believe it is a notable relation? --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article were Benin-Soviet Union relations, I'd probably vote keep. But it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia's history lesson. I also note that the Google News search linked by the nominator only covers the last month. A more considered Google News search finds a lot more, with the very first of the hits being an article in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Soviet Union Plays Growing Dahomey Role": quite obviously direct coverage of the article subject. Thousands more potential sources are available from Google Books and Google Scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, why not stick the sources you find into the article as external links - makes it easier to expand the article. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. The relationships of Russia with essentially any country will be notable, given that it was soviet policy to spread their influence as widely as possible. DGG (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Russavia. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K2. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although current relations might not quite squeak by D1, the Soviet-era relations were pretty important beyond the scope of mere bilateral diplomacy. Having said that, the article should reflect this. — AjaxSmack 03:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a valid article, and could definately be expanded. However, I think we should keep material on USSR foreign relations in articles separate from Russian foreign relations. --Soman (talk)
Comment If people are going to vote "delete" because Russia != Soviet Union (this is not the first bilateral relations article I've seen this point raised), why not instead vote to rename the article "Benin–Soviet Union relations"? The idea is to vote delete only if the material clearly fails all reasonable tests; otherwise, let's try to find a way to rescue as much as possible. -- llywrch (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least rename, as per Llywrch.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:24, July 20, 2009 (UTC)
Keep — a notable subject of inter-state relations (scale large enough) covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relations go back to the Cold War. Scanlan (talk) 01:16, 23 July 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.

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument