Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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 procedural keep - too soon after the article was kept at the original AfD to bring it back without substantial new arguments or information. The correct way to challenge the previous AfD is initially to discuss it with the closing admin and, if still concerned, to take it to WP:DRV. TerriersFan (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus–Norway relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is a lack of in-depth coverage of the topic of Cyprus-Norway relations in independent reliable sources to establish notability for the subject of this article. There are several verifiable facts included but dressing the children in matching outfits doesn't make their parent notable. Norwegian expatriates in Cyprus appears to be a notable topic and deserving of an article but that is not what's at issue here.

Sadly, even the Cypriot government site regarding their relations is that of the Embassy of Cyprus in Sweden, not Norway, and it is merely trivial coverage. If even the respective governments can't be bothered to cover their relations in-depth, it is no wonder that no one else has bothered to do so. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, I very carefully reviewed both the current article and the prior AfD. At the AfD no one ever gave any evidence of notability for the topic of Cyprus-Norway relations. It was more of a meta-discussion about all of the articles. Drawn Some (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was at AfD 34 days ago, when it was kept. No new arguments are advanced in this nomination.  I therefore view this as simple forum-shopping.  Please accept the consensus and stop asking the other parent. We will never finish chewing through all these articles if every single one is re-listed at AfD or DRV because one of the factions does not have the result they want. Keep on purely procedural grounds.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the previous discussion was defective, shouldn't you be reviewing that at DRV rather than here?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Proceedural keep and trout for nom. Based on the last AfD that closed 33 days ago and the fact that bilateral relations articles are becoming a repellent subject for this kind of pointy abuse of process. Given there are 20? or so of these at AfD presently and the same group of editors generally working on them all this seems only to inflame the angst on both sides when elegant solutions should be the focus instead. It's clear there is interest in the content so it will be here in one form or another the rest is civilly working with other editors. -- Banj e  b oi   22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. Throwing up giant trouts and ad hominem attacks as smokescreen won't fool people into thinking that Cyprus-Norway relations have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The trout was, in fact, full-size when this was posted. I've shrunk it since. — S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Do we need to contact all those who participated in the last discussion last month, and have them come and say the same thing again? I doubt anyone has changed their mind in that short period of time.  Should we actually take this AFD of bitterness seriously?   D r e a m Focus  23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets every standard of notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:40, 9 June 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.