Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania–Uzbekistan 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 no consensus. Xclamation point 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

=[[Romania–Uzbekistan relations]]=

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

Contested prod. Only reason given was "rm silliness." No real relations of which to speak. Jd027 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:N--I could not find non-trivial coverage of this topic in independent secondary sources. Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example this, this, this, this, this, etc. Yilloslime TC 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - mere existence of relations, even with embassies (covered at "Diplomatic missions of..." articles), does not equate with notability, as well established by now. - Biruitorul Talk 18:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Uzbekistan has no representation in Colombia, and that was one of the main reasons why this article was deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm having a deja vu. Dahn (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As nominator says, no real relations of which to speak. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another one of these Country 1-Country 2 relations articles. No notable relations to speak of here, fails WP:N. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant and growing relations documented in reliable sources (as is now reflected in the article). Romania accepted over 400 Uzbek refugees. The Romanian foreign minister visited Uzbekistan in November 2008 and the two countries pledged closer cooperation and relations. This is a bilateral relationship that matters and will continue to matter. A visit my a foreign minister of one country to any other country is almost always a sign of an important relationship. Cool3 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly has more substance than the sort of bilateral-relation-article that commonly gets deleted. (I think this is the first I wanted to keep in this debate) - Mgm|(talk) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Notability isn't inherited from brief visits from senior politicians or generated by small numbers of immigrants. In-depth sourcing is needed to meet WP:N, and that's not the case here. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, these aren't even immigrants: they're refugees, meaning (if they haven't departed already) most of them will not be staying in Romania for more than a few years, won't be getting citizenship, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's obviously something to say about the relationship between these two countries. Stick to deleting the ones which don't actually have any relationship. Hilary T (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Biruitorul Talk 20:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Hilary T might be posting in bad faith, but she/he has a point: there's a definable relationship here, & therefore something worth writing an article about. I suspect no one would seriously consider this article for deletion if hundreds of dubious "X-Y relations" articles had not been written, nominated -- & deleted. -- llywrch (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - notability established the usual way. No arguments presented for deletion that don't rely upon demonstratably false premises. WilyD 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::And those premises would be....?Yilloslime TC 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Yours, for instance, relies upon the non-existance of independent secondary sources of nontrivial depth, but they exist. As an example. WilyD 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Show me one--just one--and I'll change my !vote to keep. Yilloslime TC 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::::: Perhaps we're debating trivial, but the first two references in the article are non-trivial, in my opinion, and give some coverage to the relationship. Unfortunately, you'll need Lexis-Nexis to access them, or a similar database. If you have access to one, I'd encourage you to look at them yourself, otherwise I'd be happy to provide the text via email to interested parties. Cool3 (talk) 18:09, 2 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.