Deletion of Denmark – Kazakhstan relations

Comment: I would also point out that (i) most of the keep !votes have been , and thus invalid. (ii) Adding to this problem is the fact that they are under a misapprehension, typified by DreamFocus' "Hundreds of millions of dollars is notable no matter what" that such figures aren't ''completely commonplace'' in terms of world trade (or even in terms of the economies of even medium-sized countries), where it is only in the ''billions'' that numbers start to really matter. When the numbers creep into 10-11 figures, bean-counters at Foreign Ministry start to think that ''maybe'' the numbers are becoming big enough that they actually care more than nothing about them, so should open a small consulate ''that's actually in the country'' to prevent the sort of misunderstandings that cause these numbers to go down the toilet periodically
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE)

Comment: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- . $500 million 488 million DKK or $85 million is less than 0.1% of either's GDP, so is hardly "a significant amount of trade". And there is no indication that Danish companies' investments are 'substantial'. No indication that either nation places any especial emphasis on the relationship
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: 500 million is a significant amount of trade and Danish companies seem to be substantially invested in portions of Kazakhstan's economy. The high level visits over the past decade indicate importance. To LibStar's point that there has "only" been one visit by Kazakhstan's President to Denmark, |what has happened in the past matters just as much as what is happening at this moment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: as I pointed above, this article's existence isn't simply in violation of otability ''guidelines'', it is in direct violation of erifiability ''policy'' -- "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I would note that none of the keep !votes have even attempted to address this point
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)