Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria–Croatia 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Algeria–Croatia relations

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

another random combination. no bilateral agreements, just 1 minor Memo of understanding http://www.mvpei.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV//templates/_frt_bilateralni_odnosi_po_drzavama_en.asp?id=50 LibStar (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - surreally random pairing; no evidence whatsoever of notability to this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--I don't see anything in here, can't easily find anything, and don't see how there would be much going on between these two countries. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's simply another one of these pointless pairing of random countries :/ Cheers.  I 'mperator 11:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, Algeria sells a lot of natural gas to Europe, in direct competition with Russia, perhaps the Croatian-Russian relationship and the recent dissolution of Soviet-influenced Yugoslavia would be a good place to start in considering the context of this article. If Algeria and Russia are in direct competition, and if Russia has a tendency towards "market control" (read as mildly monopolistic), could Algeria-Croatia be a relationship on the rise?  One might be able to add all the non-Russian cold-war era European natural gas customer countries to this trend.  Algeria must be prospering by Russia's strong stance on its gas market.  Just a thought. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH might be of interest to you. - Biruitorul Talk 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:22, 27 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) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved. Martintg (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:59, 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)
 * WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 29 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.