Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Iceland 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. BJ Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Croatia–Iceland relations

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

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. only minor bilateral agreements LibStar (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Rather than continue to list a dozen of these articles daily, can't we wait for the discussion on this topic to conclude and let that work-group sort out this mess? These articles can wait for that, they are not so harmful.  That way they can be deleted en masse and without discussion here.  Much more efficient that way. Drawn Some (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Your suggestion amounts to an automatic "Keep" for any series of stubs, no matter how utterly unencyclopedic, just because a very few people are attempting to create a notability guideline. Most such efforts drag on with endless disputation before they are abandoned as failed efforts. The guideline should, rather be WP:N, where a few words could be added to reflect the fact of what the outcomes of these AFDs show to be the consensus of the community. Guidelines reflect practice, not what a few fans of something or opponents of it want the rules to be. See past efforts to create guidelines for schools, religious congregations, shopping malls, persons of nobility and news stories, among many others. Edison (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to say that I agree with what Edison said below about 200 articles on bilateral relations, but I see you are Edison again. My point is that there may be almost 20,000 of these articles out there and only a few hundred or a few thousand at the most may be justified. If we are to go through and consider thousands of them individually it is a huge waste of time.  Perhaps there could be an AfD for all of them under ten lines without references or something like that then.  I am for deleting them but believe there must be a better way to go about it. Drawn Some (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns, but look what happened here. It's tough getting rid of these, and right now, individual AfDs (or prods) seem to be the way to go. - Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly is a shame. Drawn Some (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Edison (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - random pairing with not a hint of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is exactly what I despise about the proposal that we wait on that damn discussion. By no means should these articles be "deleted en masse and without discussion".  And by no means should we keep all these mass-produced articles without letting people analyze them.  I don't see anything notable about the relations between Croatia and Iceland, neither of which has an embassy in the other's capital.  As always, I'm willing to reconsider if someone who shows something that might be evidence of notability.  Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--I'm really just going by WP:GNG in most of these cases, and in this case, there seems to be no coverage. Enumerations of how many articles we might have or discussons of whether an embassy or a consulate is enough for automatic notability for me just muddy the waters. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my usual standards - not enough major contacts between the two nations. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  —GregorB (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  —GregorB (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations task force deletions. – Ikip (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this stub, devoid of any sources that might begin to establish notability for a relationship of so little value to the participants that they don't bother with embassies in each other's capitals. I can find none on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 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.