Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahrain–Cyprus relations

: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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

=[[Bahrain–Cyprus relations]]=

:{{la|Bahrain–Cyprus relations}} ([{{fullurl:Bahrain–Cyprus relations|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahrain–Cyprus relations}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. only a rather insignificant agreement between the 2 countries [http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/All/4447BD092A73C6A2C22571E0003A37D5/$file/Bahrain.pdf?OpenElement Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs: list of bilateral treaties with Bahrain] LibStar (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

: 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) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

: the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

: the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • 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) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Another one in a long series of spam. I don't see how any ongoing debate could "salvage" this article, if that it what's expected, and in case it matters naught that it's ongoing. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

: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.