Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Thailand 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus–Thailand relations

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

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies and only 2 relatively minor agreements LibStar (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - random, unsourced, non-notable pairing. - Biruitorul Talk 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing of any substance, and nothing that can be expanded. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:42, 25 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  15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:21, 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) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:04, 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) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM as you state is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: The "keep" vote is clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. On this one, I'm afraid I agree. The nominator should have exercised due diligence in his nomination, rather than just slapping a tag on it solely because it is about relations between two relatively unknown nations. However, that said, there is nothing of note between the two countries. HJMitchell    You rang?  14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I looked for evidence of notable relations such as the Cypriot foreign ministry website before deciding to nominate for deletion. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 2 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.