Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Saudi Arabia 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted under looser notability standards at AfD in 2009. Not every country A and country B combination is notable. Very poorly sourced, no secondary sources at all. Contains wild claims such as "political relations are close due to similarities between the 2 countries on historical, geographical and economical issues." AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Saudi Arabia, and Cyprus. AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is based on 2 sources, 1 of which is primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added more sources and encyclopedic context. Bilateral relations between two nations should not be considered irrelevant, and without notoriety, the two countries have mutual cooperation agreements, and like all articles of embassies, consulates and diplomatic relations with the exception of a diplomat Ghirmai Ghebremariam, who opened a query of deletion because it does not meet expectations, the other previous ones could have relevance in the future, and if they should be maintained and improved, not redirected or merged, much less eliminated. Alon9393 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Indefinitely blocked for disruptive behaviour. Geschichte (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DeletePer lack of sigcov, in particular independent sources which discuss this topic directly.181.197.42.150 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This looks a bit like a WP:SOCK of banned Alon9393 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP's first edit was to Víctor Roqueme Quiñonez which Alon created, and then the IP suddenly appeared in AFD discussions of pages that Alon had been involved in, those being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kfir Tsafrir and this discussion. I don't know why the IP gave different opinions in the two AFDs though. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The sources in the article come close to showing sigcov, especially for a tiny country like Cyprus. Looking up the “Cyprus chamber forum in Riyadh”, I also found this [1]. Looking up the Saudi stance on the division of Cyprus, I found this (extremely biased) paper [2], which is definitely sigcov and argues that Saudi supports Turkey in the dispute (contradicting this article). On the other hand, this news report [3] suggests that Saudi supports Cyprus, not Turkey. The truth is probably a complicated mess. And this [4] suggests an electrical connection (extremely unlikely to happen, but it’s still coverage).

However, despite the coverage, I am not very confident that this article should be kept, since it has very little content that is both notable/DUE and verifiable. Diplomats meeting each other is usually not important enough for inclusion in an article, even if it generates newswire reports (like source 3). Worse, large parts of the article are made-up fluff (like the Cyprus dispute section). This might be a good case for a TNT, I’m not sure. Toadspike [Talk] 09:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. insufficient coverage and no notoriety encyclopedia. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2024 (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.