Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Paraguay 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 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Croatia–Paraguay relations

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

another random almost laughable pairing from the obsessive article creator. non resident ambassadors. no bilateral agreements whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a shred of notability to be found in this random pairing. - Biruitorul Talk 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Bizarre article. Not suprisingly, a Google search of 'Croatia Paraguay' doesn't return any usuable sources: so WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as with many of these, the foreign embassy sites of each nation involved supports the lack of notability. Is it worth establishing guidelines so we can PROD some of the more obviously pointless ones? ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:25, 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  15:58, 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. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 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) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:53, 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) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:00, 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) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Random and pointless article, going nowhere and helping no one. Dahn (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails my standards, appears to fail WP:N. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 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.