Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angola–Serbia 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. Nja 247 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Angola–Serbia relations

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

These two countries do not have a notable bilateral relationship. There is none even asserted in the unreferenced stub, and there is none assertable if one seeks for reliable sources. These two smallish countries don't have much to do with each other -- a hint may have been the absence of coverage anywhere in the world on this relationship that rises above the extremely trivial. This was a contested prod (one reason i never prod -- just a waste of time) Bali ultimate (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable in terms of the intended scope of the article. Not likely to become so. -- BlueSquadron Raven  21:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yugoslavia might have had some meaningful relations with Angola in the '70s, but in the absence of reliable sources documenting this, we should delete. At this point the article is quite insipid, asserting nothing beyond the existence of embassies, already covered in the respective "diplomatic missions of..." articles. - Biruitorul Talk 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - both former communist/socialist nations; full embassies; "friendly" relations. See  and .  I would prefer to see more to establish notability, but that's all I found on a Google News search. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yugoslavia (of which Serbia is the successor state) was one of the main supporters of the MPLA in the Angolan Civil War, providing training , and was also also being major source for arms which were chanelled to UNITA by South Africa. Both countries had observer status at Comecon. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you've dug up, but given a) Yugoslavia was just one of several big supporters of MPLA b) there's not that much more to the relationship, can't what needs to be said be said at MPLA? - Biruitorul Talk 17:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information could be included elsewhere, but let's look at this from the point of view of the reader, i. e. the person for whose benefit we are supposed to be writing this encyclopedia. If someone looks up "Angola–Serbia relations" is it better for us to redirect to an article about the MPLA, leaving the reader wondering whether we have lots of other information about Angola–Serbia relations hidden away in other articles, or for us to have this article that collects together the information that we have about the subject, with its links to MPLA, Angolan civil war, UNITA and Comecon that can be followed if more information is wanted? There's nothing wrong with having information in more than one place. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, the information could be included elsewhere. All In Order (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — All In Order (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a Hilary T sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Also, the fact that they have/had diplomats does not automatically create notability. Edison (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Neither of the above two opinions addresses my points above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Quite sufficient sources, as Phil found. (Almost anything in Wikipedia could of course be included in other articles than the present ones--that's not a reasonable criterion). DGG (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus on consistent guidelines on notability is achieved at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There should be something like WP:BLP1E for this type of article. Embassies and sitting somewhere together are completely trivial and don't warrant an article. The only thing that remains is Yugoslav support for the MPLA. There are several better places where this information can go; and anyway I wouldn't think of Serbia as the successor of Yugoslavia. If this information had to go to any bilateral relations article, then Angola-Yugoslavia relation would be the correct choice. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:35, 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.