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 no consensus. NW (Talk) 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan-Denmark relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

neither has country has embassies, no known agreements. current article mentions one state visit but I can't find anything else. the current article mentions a Danish program that applies to a group of countries not just Azerbaijan. those wanting to barrel scrape the President of Azerbaijan sent a letter to the Queen of Denmark wishing her a happy birthday and Azerbaijan buys ink-jet scanners from Denmark for election. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominated a day after the article was created, without any discussion on the talk page at all. AFD should be a last resort, not the first thing done. Anyway, the section The Neighbourhood Programme seems to indicate a relationship exist. Before the AFD nomination, the original article did already mention Denmark giving four million dollars to Azerbaijan. For a country of nine million people, that amount is probably a lot. Dream Focus 19:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More sources would help, I've advised the creator that any secondary sources would be of special value and perhaps he can help as he seems to be from Denmark. Even with only the existing sources, per DreamFocus the topic seems noteable enough to deserve an article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks to me like they have verifiable relations with a fairly long list of state visits. (See [1]). Agree with Dream Focus that this Adf nomination came too soon after article creation.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep- this article is kind of flimsy, like so many of the bilateral relations articles, but it does contain some sources that refer to the dealings between the countries as "Azerbaijan-Denmark relations". So it is not, unlike so many of the bilateral relations articles, merely vague expressions of friendliness between the countries exaggerated and synthesized into an article. Reyk _YO! 23:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article will benefit from further expansion, but notability is satisfied based on the existing content of the article. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Relationship is far too tenuous to require its own article. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep valid sources that actually cover the relations... just because the relationship is tenuous does not mean we shuld delete it... at the very least we should merge to a page about relations for each country... but you don't need an afd for thatArskwad (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article lacks any independent sources to establish notability. All the current refs are to government websites, and its standard for most western governments' foreign ministries to have a webpage for every other country in the world they have any kind of relationship, so these are not useful in establishing notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Foreign relations of Denmark and Foreign relations of Azerbaijan. Normally I am in favoring of keeping and improving bilateral relations articles, but I am having a hard time justifying this one. The relationship is basically multilateral, not bilateral. A search of the Copenhagen Post online reveals no articles on the relations. If the delete of Indonesia-Macedonia relations (where there was a large amount of international trade) is an indication of consensus, then this article surely will be deleted as well.--TM 10:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - The relationship appears to be notable and should either have its own article or be merged as per User:Namiba. But it certainly shouldn't be deleted. DiiCinta (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (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.