Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–New Zealand 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 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria–New Zealand relations

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

non resident ambassadors. even the NZ govt says ''New Zealand's bilateral relationship with Bulgaria, at both economic and cultural levels, is cordial but lacks substance! LibStar (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (and per the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade) Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Quantpole (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom's link. It is also interesting to note that New Zealand's consulate is in Brussels, which isn't even in Bulgaria. Tavix | Talk  11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The evidence points to little of substance. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a comically random pairing with no established notability. - Biruitorul Talk 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete From the article's link to the New Zealand Foreign Ministry : "New Zealand's bilateral relationship with Bulgaria, at both economic and cultural levels, is cordial but lacks substance." They were being, well, diplomatic about it.  Mandsford (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, per my usual standards, and per WP:CRYSTAL - the sources even state that their relationship could deepen, but does not state how. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 22 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  15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. it was heading for WP:SNOW. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 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) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:13, 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.