Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahrain–Hungary 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. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain–Hungary relations

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

another random country pairing with no evidence of notable trade or diplomatic relations. should be deleted and being non controversial is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; bilateral relations are not inherently notable, and there's no evidence this one is. - Biruitorul Talk 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this does not appear to be notable. See my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per this list. These countries would be the only ones I would consider keeping. Tavix | Talk  23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Biruitorul. Non-notable intersection of countries, and in this case we can't even say anything about embassies. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing that would raise this over the notability threshold.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:46, 21 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. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X–Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I'm not opposed to this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. Disc space is cheap. Human time and effort are not. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your keep vote seems mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with a "free disc usage" argument. These are both false arguments. This is a wiki, the disc usage has nothing to do with what is on it, because remember when things are "deleted", administrators still have access to the deleted history, which means that the size will remain the same, if not grow larger with a deletion. Tavix | Talk  22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a Mbhiii sockpuppet &mdash; another sockpuppetteer that attempts to stuff nonexistent ballots at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If these weren't ballots, there would be no need to strike out sockpuppet contributions because there would be no point making them. Mergellus (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:23, 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) 01:51, 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) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 27 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.