Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize–Russia 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 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Belize–Russia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notabily for WP:FOR Stigni (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion for procedural reasons. WikiProject-specific guidelines cannot serve as a basis for determining notability (only the WP:N criteria can) and, subsequently, for deletion. (But if objections based on WP:N are brought to light, I'll consider striking my oppose out).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 18:41 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete no embassies, trade agreements, significant migration, significant trade, notable incidents, regular high level meetings between leaders. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Replay to Ezhiki: If you don't explain how the relation is notable for WP:GNG for me it remains delete, because article from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the two country doesn't respect the criteria: "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"; and such article could be considered as primary sources ("written by people who are directly involved"). Stigni (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The ultimate decision lies with the closing admin. I'm merely pointing out the procedural aspect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 2, 2012; 11:51 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - While the nomination is defective in that it does not present a policy-based reason for deletion, I think we can safely imply the complaint that this unsourced stub fails GNG. I am in favor of keeping all sourced X-Y Relations articles, but this one fails even that low bar. Fails GNG for not being the subject of multiple, independently published instances of coverage in reputable sources. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Libstar and Carrite; I can't imagine there is much more to add and source. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2012 (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.