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The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Senegal relations[edit]

Australia–Senegal relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. the article states Australia intended to open an embassy in senegal but that never happened, and Senegal doesn't have an embassy in Australia. I could find no evidence of visits by leaders or agreements. Trade is relative small, with Senegal ranked as Australia's 86th largest trading partner. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Minimal content and sourced to one press release. There's no evidence that Australia-Senegal relations are even a thing. Reyk _YO! 02:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've substantially expanded it, and it now meets the GNG. @User:Reyk, please can you have a look at the expanded version. --99of9 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks to the expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - as those who know me well know, I think these articles are daft and I can't see why information like this (as unimportant as it is) shouldn't be included in their respective Foreign relations of Australia and Foreign relations of Senegal articles. That said, Australia gained UN votes by promising to build an embassy there and then cancelled those plans. Again, synthing together a bunch of minor diplomatic incidents to suggest a broader long-term diplomatic relationship is a bit dishonest but in this case, the "relationship" technically meets WP:GNG. Stalwart111 02:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Stalwart111 And exactly where have I "dishonest[ly]" synthesized ("A and B, therefore C")? Please cite a single clear case or retract this accusation. --99of9 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear - that wasn't directed at you in particular (or at all) but was more (per "again") part of an ongoing discussion about these articles in general, part of which is at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#The_bilateral_country_articles. There's been an ongoing effort to create myriad "x-y relations" articles when said relationships aren't even notable enough to avoid WP:WEIGHT with inclusion in relevant "Foreign relations of x" articles. Many simply take a couple of minor diplomatic incidents or events and list them together to suggest a wider whole. That's not the case here and my point was that this is actually different in that it does meet GNG where others fail miserably. It wasn't a reflection on you at all. Stalwart111 04:41, 21 February 2014 (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.