Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Iran 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) Erik9 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Iran relations

Unsourced stub on bilateral relationship for which i can find no sources that would establish independent notability. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant bilateral relationship exists. See the article entitled "Belarus and Iran forge Strategic Partnership," originally from the International Herald Tribune [1]. In the article, you will find quotes about the Belarus-Iran relationship from scholars, politicians, and more. Furthermore, the International Herald Tribune's reporter refers to the "special relationship" between the two countries. Cool3 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Belarus - Iran Foreign Relations on the Iran Tracker website, which is run by the American Enterprise Institute. Their article isn't the longest I've ever seen, but that is independent coverage of the relationship from one of America's principal public policy think tanks. Cool3 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information.Edison (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In addition to the source Cool3 pointed out, I found a myriad of other sources pointing towards these countries having a highly notable relationship. Some highlights: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I am finding pages and pages more of relevant results. These are NOT focusing on a single event--rather the coverage is of multiple separate events/topics all relating to Belarus/Iran relations, over a long period of time. See: [8] for a list of results. Cazort (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we also have trade being the basis of their relations here, international concern about their relationship here, response to international pressure here, Iran support to Belarus in nuclear power plant construction here and many more. Not only is this a notable relationship, it is one that has broader international implications. Smile a While (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good faith would be best shown by a prompt withdrawal of the nomination. DGG (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith would not be to make such straw man type demands that attack the motives of the nominator without making any policy-based argument whatsoever. The article remains entirely unsourced without even a bare assertion of notability, and I have not been convinced otherwise but what i've read here. Very poor "keep" vote DGG.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I implied, but did not think necessary to say that a/Keep, on the basis of the arguments of the sources just submitted. and b/that I hoped you also would recognize that. I apologize for not saying it in full initially. DGG (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the numerous citations proving notability above.--Moloch09 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there has to be significant events between two countries before we can document the relations. Otherwise, it will forever be a stub. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't you consider the events documented above to be significant? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you were to google any pair of countries, you are bound to find information about trade, political agreements, financial deals, etc. between country x and country y. For example, China and Yemen[9]. IMO, these are not significant events, but I am willing to change my vote if you can demonstrate that the events that occurred between Iran and Belarus are more significant than those occurred between Yemen and China. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, there is good reason to keep them, since those things are what make for notability. "Significant" is less than historic, just as "notable" is less than famous. DGG (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Data from 2008 shows that trade between these nations almost reached 1 Billion USD and even Iran is sending students to Belarus for university studies [10]. These two countries also play a key role in the oil politics, which is an issue that is constant today [11]. Belarus is also using Iran to ween itself from Russia, which is another constant political sticking point relevant today (think Gazprom). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute keep of the strongest magnitude One need only read any news relating to Belarus foreign policy in probably the last ten years, and it is well known that Belarus and Iran have been developing a strategic relationship. Iran is a key recipient of Belarus military equipment - stuff like "Mr. Lukashenko personally ordered Soviet-trained Belarusian chemists, scientists and technicians to work closely with Iran's mullahs on the deadly Shahab missile system -- designed to strike Europe and Israel -- as well as on the country's uranium enrichment and chemical warfare programs." is pretty strong military relations. There are also strong economic and trade ties (including flights between Belarus and Minsk). The nominator bother to look at WP:BEFORE, in particular try to find sources to see if it may be notable? I would suggest a google search (web, books and scholar) for strings such as "belarus iran relations", "belarus iran military", "belarus iran trade", etc. Another search could include "Беларусь Иран отношения", "Беларусь Иран военная", "Беларусь Иран торговля". One will see that this is clearly a notable relationship. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:09, 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.