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 to delete. –Juliancolton |
Talk 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)reply
another random almost laughable combination. non resident ambassadors.
LibStar (
talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - two fairly small countries on opposite sides of the world are unlikely to have notable relations, and no sources indicate they do. -
BiruitorulTalk 02:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is
not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails
notability as well.
Edison (
talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing to establish notability on, and not likely to, either. --
BlueSquadronRaven 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak, weak keep I managed to find one source after roughly 30 seconds of searching,
[1], and there may be more out there... SpencerT♦Nominate! 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
a) You can't really have a viable article saying "Bulgaria and Paraguay have relations, any by the way, they also have a treaty regarding visa suppression for holders of all types of passports"; b) We would need a secondary source telling us why that treaty matters; see
WP:PSTS for details. -
BiruitorulTalk 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)reply
the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text.
LibStar (
talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)reply
This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. -
BiruitorulTalk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --
Reinoutr (
talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Random and trivial.
Dahn (
talk) 15:45, 28 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.