Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–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 based on existing and sources found during the 19-day discussion. Synthesis and cruft can be removed via the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Colombia–Malaysia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. another random combination. no evidence of actual notable relations. wanting to cooperate about the Pacific Basin is hardly advancing notability. the article is based on one primary source. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pure WP:OR and WP:SYN. Holyfield1998 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – The topic has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:N, section WP:GNG. Examples include, but are not limited to (some are non-English):, , , , ,  (the last one is a short article). Northamerica1000(talk) 11:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * whilst sources found are welcome, most of this coverage is routine.this is a passing mention about helping countries "such as colombia", and a few of these sources are based on a 1994 visit by the Colombian deputy agriculture minister. coverage is sporadic and not about an indepth relationship. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * also many countries have given Colombia to fight its war on drugs. A one off payment of USD$20,000 is really a drop in the ocean compared to say USD97 million in 1997 from USA . LibStar (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Articles on international relations are a staple of an encyclopedia and also fit the gazzeteer mandate of Wikipedia as covered in the WP:5P. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * this is a recycled argument and that does not address the specifics of this AfD. bilateral articles are not inherently notable over 100 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is a recycled rebuttal  that does not address the specifics of The Bushranger's argument. —  PinkAmpers   &#38;   ( Je vous invite à me parler )  09:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ok, there have been so many articles of this type on AFD recently.  I think we need a consensus on what constitutes notability in bilateral relations.  Howicus (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep What I find most unusual about these series of AfD nominations are deletion arguments on the grounds of notability. Any country that keeps open diplomatic relations between the two countries including diplomatic missions is invariably notable. On that ground I would say there is a clear assertion to notability. On the grounds of being poorly sourced, that's a surmountable problem. The articles should be tagged for clean up than deleted. In many of these cases WP:BEFORE does not appear to be thorough as was the case at Embassy of Mali, Ottawa where there were plenty of sources but WP:GNG was cited. Mkdw talk 23:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * bilateral relations are not inherently notable. Malaysia does not even have an embassy in Colombia so your argument here is not applicable on missions. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, nothing is inherently notable, but something so large should be strongly looked at before declaring its not notable because the subject is massive and highly official. Furthermore, an embassy does not mark whether countries have open diplomatic relations. As stated in the article and cited, diplomatic relations between the two countries started in 1978. The fact that there's an embassy in Malaysia and an ambassador in Peru that looks after Colombia are fairly solid though. Not having a direct embassy in Colombia does not discount the fact they have a cited open relationship on many levels. Also, my argument had two other points based outside the embassy so I wouldn't call my argument 'not applicable' just yet. Mkdw talk 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep after skim-reading the first three of NorthAmerica's links, I think the GNG is passed on this relationship. Think carefully about what constitutes WP:ROUTINE... Agricultural cooperation agreements (even planned) etc are not like "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs". --99of9 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think NA is right in that the article has plenty of potential to be improved if only the articles could survive long enough to do so. Again, a case of WP:BEFORE shows plenty of sources if properly researched in. I focused my search on the involvement of the two countries in the UN and found a number of references. I think any country that has had established international trade and diplomatic relations for as long will have sources. Mkdw talk 00:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes GNG, as most such articles will IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments the article contains pure WP:SYNTH like this "In 2006, both countries applied to the United Nations Environmental Programme during the Montreal Protocol for International Strengthening (IS).[6] The committee's reviewed their applications together and approved $275,000 in funding for both countries.[6]". it is just coincidence they applies the same time for the same funding program. no evidence of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2013 (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.