Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Georgia 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Croatia–Georgia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Prod'ed recently for being unreferenced for years, got fixed with two basic official references, but they're not secondary sources demonstrating significant coverage in independent sources. This is like the umpteenth "international relations" article which I've noticed that doesn't demonstrate potential or approach the matter from the point of actually trying to describe relations, instead it's just a handful of mundane factoids and a few generic pretty pictures (map, flags) which illustrate those factoids but not their actual synthesis. We really should set some notability standards for these kinds of articles, it's been violating the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY for years now. Joy (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and Georgia (country). Joy (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as someone that has participated in almost all bilateral AfDs, this one definitely fails WP:GNG. And lacking things that make bilateral relations notable like significant migration/trade and state visits. They don't even have resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even resident embassies doesn't have to mean much if you think about it... For example a rich country can afford to put embassies on the ground pretty much everywhere, but that doesn't mean much if it employs two dozen staff and renders mundane services to a hundred tourists a year - that'd still just not be notable. I'm glad to see this enthusiasm, but it just seems people want to have notability inherently carried over from notable states themselves, which should not be the standard. --Joy (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, per all above. -Vipz (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2023 (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.