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 delete.
Stifle (
talk) 15:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)reply
fails WP:GNG. there is nothing to this relationship except diplomatic recognition, given that happened only in 2012, there is also unlikely to be any real trade, agreements or leader visits, or any significant interaction.
LibStar (
talk) 01:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: This is a "boilerplate relationship", and the text even mentions that it was entered for purely formal reasons. Unless there's something more to it that gets added to the article, I have to agree it fails
WP:GNG. --
Latebird (
talk) 12:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Latebird
Nick-D (
talk) 10:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom,
Latebird. No substance to the relationship between these countries.
Egsan Bacon (
talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (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.