Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambodian-Greek 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cambodian-Greek relations

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

completely insignificant relationship non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it seems Groubani had a thing for Greece, but really, zero notability has been shown, or likely can be shown for this one. - Biruitorul Talk 04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there seems to be a bit there. Greece was quite vocal at the UN preferring Democratic Kampuchea over the People's Republic of Kampuchea in the 1990's. They also contributed polling officers to the UNTAC mission in 1993. They've since cooperated over the Cambodian flagged (and Greek captained) 'Winner' debacle, where a Cambodian flagged ship carrying cocaine was fired upon by the French navy. An email to the Greek embassy in Bangkok would probably gives us any press releases on economic co-operation. I've added various refs on the above that I've found to the talk page for now. I'll try to expand the article with them soon (at right work now!). Cheers, Paxse (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not uninteresting, but a) most of those are primary sources; b) it would help if the relationship as such had been the object of study, not us stringing together bits of information we consider evidence of a notable relationship and proclaiming one out of these, in violation of WP:SYNTH. - Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 11:50, 24 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. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Paxse's sources are sufficient to convince me of the notability.  The fact to the matter is that in-depth sources on the relationship as such are much more likely to exist in Greek or Khmer than in English (so at least I for one can't really find them).  What Paxse has done is show that a relationship exists and that there is enough material here for a good article. Cool3 (talk) 18:14, 24 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. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 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) 01:53, 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)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable; complimented by trivia which in no way establishes notability. Dahn (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable, independent sources discuss this relationship. THat's the minimum standard.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:10, 30 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.