Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan 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 18:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Albanian-Moldovan relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable; these two don't even have embassies with each other. See Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations for very recent consensus on the matter. (I should note the pair have signed a free trade agreement, but Moldova has signed similar documents with Romania, Armenia, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Bosnia, so this is clearly nothing out of the ordinary, plus it's doubtful the two poorest countries in Europe do that much trade.) And may I also point out that I prodded a few trivial articles of this nature yesterday (including this one), only to be reverted by User:WilyD with the dismissive edit summary "rm silliness":, , , , ,. So if you're wondering why this stuff is lying around for so long and keeps making its way through AfD despite broad consensus for swift deletion, there's the answer; it's certainly not the first time he's done it either. Biruitorul Talk 14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - attacking me is not a substitute for a rationale for deletion (of course, with transparently notable articles, one probably have nothing better). Like almost every pairing of countries, easily meets and exceeds WP:N   of course, the sources go on and on and on ... like any pairing, anyone who spends even a few minutes investigating will come to the unavoidable conclusion.  I'm puzzled by the campaign to purge such useful, encyclopaedic articles from Wikipedia. Wily D  15:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In no way did I "attack" you. 2) Of the six sources you gave, the third and the sixth tell us nothing. Three of the others talk about how the Albanian President (who, by the way, is more or less a figurehead) spent a couple of days in Moldova; and the final one about how the Moldovan President spent a day in Albania (where he didn't even meet his counterpart). This kind of stuff is purely symbolic and forms part of the normal course of international relations. It is not a substitute for an actual article. 3) You can't easily skirt the fact that they don't have embassies, or cultural/historic ties, or much at all to do with each other. Two short, ceremonial visits quickly forgotten can't make up for that. - Biruitorul Talk 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content-free article.  Automatic pairing articles are not worth keeping around, especially if they don't say anything.  (Of course, their tendency to creep up again and again points to a significant architectural flaw of MediaWiki, but that's a point for another day.) ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - another pair of random countries which really don't have any relations of which to speak.  Jd 027  (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I could find no sources establishing notability of this topic. Yilloslime T C  20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Generally speaking, any pair of countries which don't have embassies with each other are unlikely to have relations worthy of a separate article. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- I agree wholeheartedly with Digwuren's analysis of these contentless country pairing articles, and with Biruitorul's analysis of the "sources" provided by WilyD. Reyk  YO!  21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, given that there are 192 UN member countries, the possible number of articles is 192!/(192-2) = 1.868 x 10354. Not all of them are notable. Martintg (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, by my maths, the number of possible articles of this type is (192*191)/2=18336. Still a large number of mostly pointless articles, but nothing like the horror you're describing. Reyk  YO!  22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Math was never my strong point, I based my calculation on Permutation but I probably mis-understood the concept. Martintg (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per others, little if any encyclopedic content.  ♪Tempo  di Valse ♪  21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that this relationship is significant — it would be reasonable to have an article on Montenegro/Japan relations, due to the war between them that just concluded (see here), but I doubt that there's anything like this going on between these two. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Relations are not shown to be notable. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The only non-trivial information in the article reveals the countries don't have actual embassies for the other inside their own borders which indicates the relations are most likely insignificant. The rest of the page gives no useful content at all. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - One of the reasons that I nominated Chile–Cyprus relations was that they don't have embassies in the other country. It applies here as well (Albania is represented in its embassy in Moscow, and Moldova is represented by it's Sofian embassy). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  10:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find most such articles to be rather trivial and pointless. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no real value in such articles Rizos01 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete as these countries don't have any notable relations. Tavix (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with User:DitzyNizzy, they don't have embassies in their respective countries. ΕλληνΚύπριος (talk) 17:29, 30 March 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.