Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Malaysia 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   keep. -- User:Docu 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Belgium–Malaysia relations

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

whilst these 2 countries have embassies, the relations are not notable nor subject to wide coverage. the Belgian foreign ministry doesn't even mention Malaysia in this. Coverage is mainly in a multilateral or sporting context LibStar (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also no actual content on the page - wouldn't that make it a candidate for speedy deletion? --Razakel19 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you would think so, but the fact they have embassies show some limited relations...whether or not this is enough to justify an article. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete not worth an article just documenting the fact that notional relations exist, however keep if any reasonable content on the subject is added.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - weak keep per refs,,, , , , . Plus UN treaties - Marcusmax ( speak ) 13:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sources show, more or less, that Belgian companies want to invest in Malaysia, or have put a few millions there. We need more to show evidence of a notable relationship; an article saying "Belgian companies are thinking of investing in Malaysia" wouldn't amount to much. - Biruitorul Talk 22:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So a statement such as, "After all, it is one of 16 countries that have enjoyed half a century of diplomatic relations with Malaysia.' in link two fails to show some notability. The title of this article is Belgium–Malaysia relations after all. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We've deleted articles before involving relationships lasting half a century or more. The question is: has something noteworthy happened in that half century? I don't see evidence of that. - Biruitorul Talk 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noteworthy means it was noted by the media, it doesn't have to be front page material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Basically a dictionary definition. Stubs on bilateral relations of X and Y which would be better covered by "Foreign relations of X" and "Foreign relations of Y," thus including the same info with 200 articles rather than 20,000 stubs. Wikipedia is not a directory. The websites of the foreign ministries will always be better sources than these stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A telephone book is a directory, this is a not a directory entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * in its current form the article is a directory, contains no real information about their bilateral relations. and not an almanac either. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per references found above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Insufficiently notable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, there is this - http://www.mymabl.com/pages/index.php - The Malaysian Association of Belgium and Luxembourg, affiliated with the embassy in Brussels... it counts 75 members incl the ambassador; more of a social/cultural organization rather than an actual Chamber of Commerce, EU group, security group or internet trade facility.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided in the article and the additional material provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure that Belgian officials can locate Malaysia on the map and vice versa. This is the single basic fact, not inherently notable, and the rest of the article is trivia we would not have around for any reason whatsoever, were it not for these ill-conceived "rescue" attempts. That one can hyphenate random countries is not reason enough for having this sort of articles around. Dahn (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to respective articles on diplomatic relations by country. The sources in the article seem to suggest there is a relatiosnhip but not enough to merit its own article. HJMitchell    You rang?  11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no overarching coverage of the article topic as stated by its title. All references are from within the last week, so hardly convey ongoing significance. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a reminder there are more articles up for deletion that can use more Google searching and more references added and they are here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I tried |en|Belgium%E2%80%93Malaysia Google translate since any news sources would be in the languages of one of those countries, but when said to French to English, Belgium–Malaysia translates as Australia-Malaysia. Obviously the translator has serious problem, unless those two nations decided to switch names or something.  When it doubt, its best to just leave the article alone.  You gain nothing by deleting it.  With so many articles nominated at once, there is no way to search for references for all of them.  You'll have to find someone who speaks French of Malaysian, or a translator program that works properly, in order to find news stories from each nation about the relationship between both of them.   D r e a m Focus  03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think this article in any way establishes any kind of coverage or notability of this topic; however, as Ikip pointed out, Wikiproject International Relations appears to have a centralized discussion on fixing all these bilateral relations topics, so I'd hold off on deleting until they can take a crack at it. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too much well-sourced content to reasonably merge/replicate into both the tables in Foreign relations of Malaysia and Foreign relations of Belgium. Significant duplication in the two articles would invite forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you were worried that it's not notable (and someone said the foreign ministry's page didn't even mention Malaysia) here's a whole page on their relationship (in French only, sorry). - Oreo Priest  talk 14:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of sources have been found to enable expansion and meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 17:05, 16 May 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.