Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina – Cyprus 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   no consensus. In any case, the sources should be added into the article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina – Cyprus relations

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

Contested prod. I was asked to look for sources. They're not there. Can we agree to delete now? The pairing is as random and lacking in notability as any I've seen. Biruitorul Talk 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources establish notability the usual way. I see no argument that this is a highly unusual article that demands a highly irregular treatment.  Finding sources, of course, is easier than pissing in the shower (though not half as fun):  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  and so forth.  Of course, one has to wade through all the "Is Bosnia the next Cyprus?" opinion pieces, but such is life. Wily D  12:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What nearly all of those sources tell us is that Cyprus established relations with BiH, creating a bit of a stir in the process. Since relations are not inherently notable, and since essentially nothing else has occurred since then between the two, we still don't have the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement is flatly false for any reasonable definition of "significant". It is certainly not in the same ballpark as the usual practice of WP:N. Wily D  17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem waiting half a year or so, so we can all see no article can be written on this, and putting it up for deletion again. However, it'd be best if we just acknowledged that now. Your sources, aside from not addressing the relationship as such in depth, are essentially just news briefs, the relevance of which is not validated by anything. - Biruitorul Talk 17:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given your indiscriminate nominations of articles and persistant misrepresentation of the facts, don't colour me convinced. We both know one could write a decent article on this (and most other) bilateral relations.  That we're forced instead to spend our time dealing with spurious AFDs is not my doing ... Wily D  17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I certainly don't know that, and I'd be surprised to see one, given the lack of sources covering the topic in depth. - Biruitorul Talk 18:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When one ignores the facts, I suppose it is pretty easy to come to a wide variety of conclusions, yes. Wily D 21:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's you who is ignoring the lack of in-depth coverage on the purported topic, and deeming random bits of news to substitute for that. - Biruitorul Talk 21:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources. creating an international stir is notability DGG (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability and Wikipedia is not a directory. Better to mention foreign relations in the article about each country than to have an article about each "relationship" they have with one of the other 203 sovereign countries, since such bilateral article could total 20,000 or so for all pairs of countries. Edison (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile these claims with the facts that it exceeds the standards of WP:N, and is not in any way, shape or form a directory entry? Wily D 21:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete absent further evidence of notability. Right now the article does not even make a credible claim to notability: the fact that the nations have recognized each other, are in some of the same international groups, and have embassies is not notable enough for a separate article; put it in the article of that nation.  WikiProject International relations has some well thought out advice for when bilateral relations are notable(WikiProject International relations): this pairing doesnt satisfy any of them. Locke9k (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage supplied by WilyD directly about Bosnia and Herzegovina-Cyprus relations satisfying WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. Sources show nothing of the topic itself, only isolate incidents. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a bilateral relationship of so little import that neither state maintains an embassy in the other. I can find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any non-trivial manner.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Multiple incidents regarding to or more nations can have an impact on relations between two countries, see Australia-Uruguay relations. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 02:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They are on several councils together, so surely have a relationship with one another.  D r e a m Focus  03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That fact is included in the articles on the organisations themselves! Why keep a separate permastub just to record this bit of trivia? - Biruitorul Talk 06:26, 5 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.