Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus–Paraguay relations

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

another random and laughable combination by the obsessive stub creator. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - their mutual representation is in Switzerland. No notable relations to speak of here. - Biruitorul Talk 15:26, 23 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.-- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 11:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:06, 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) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:02, 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) 16:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Please can we hold fire on deleting entries on bilateral relations pending the outcome of the   central discussion on this class of article?  There is growing support for these articles and for a specific guideline to define what makes a bilateral relationship notable - analogous to say WP:music which allows us to rank as notable any musician who’s had a hit in a national chart, even if she hasn’t been the subject of multiple non trivial journalistic or academic studies.  Until we have the new guideline editors can spend hours finding sources on these relationships only to see the article deleted by opponents who zealously appeal to a strict interpretation of existing guidelines, which while worthy aren’t specifically tailed to address bilateral relations.   Once a specific guideline is in place these articles can be improved accordingly or deleted if they dont meet the agreed criteria – and much less time will be wasted editing in vain and on these ADF discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered strong keep as it does not assess the notability of the subject. another editor has said Centralized discussions are not arbitration, or even mediation. There is no definite outcome of a centralized discussion, and even if there was, the underlying issue is and will always be one of notability  LibStar (talk) 13:30, 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.