Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan–Ukraine 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Ukraine relations

No evidence of notability provided, apart from routine trade relations, and visits by heads of state which are routine and highly staged events IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this one could use some better third-party sourcing but unlike some of these random country pairings this one seems to contain some encyclopedic information - high-level visits and balance-of-trade information is the kind of thing these articles should contain. Obviously the relationship between these two countries is not exactly extensive or close, but there seems to be sufficient useful information to support a stub. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this topic is better covered in Foreign relations of Japan and Foreign relations of Ukraine respectively. Goesquack (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sure, there've been the usual ceremonial visits, the carbon deals signed, and so forth, but with no historic, cultural or geographic ties and fairly low-level economic ones, it's difficult to see a coherent, well-developed article being written about this subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one in a series of Japan-"Country X" foreign affairs articles that could benefit with substantial expansion and references. --MChew (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be pedantic, but where are those sources? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few refs from the first few search results on "japan ukraine trade". I assume there are many more if anyone cares to expand the article further, and more to be said about other aspects of the relationship (cultural exchanges etc.) Not very exciting, maybe, but trade beats war in my book. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Canvasback (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Canvasback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft and clutter. Dahn (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:' "cruft" = IDONTLIKEIT. "Clutter"=ITHOUGHTWEWEREPAPER. DGG (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nah, I was just tired of repeating the exact same points I've made on numerous similar AfDs. You can pick it up, mutatis mutandis, from other such pages I've edited recently. Dahn (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, this is OK article. Agree with DGG. Delist/keet for procedural reasons. This is pure disruption.Biophys (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to refs found by Aymatth2 and due to comments by DGG. This is a disruptive nomination by someone whose intent is disruption. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nihonjoe, whom I note hasn't weighed in on any other related nominations. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:52, 27 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.