Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark–Moldova 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   no consensus. NW ( Talk ) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Denmark–Moldova relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

this is a recreated article of a something that previously past through as delete. my previous reasons stand. no embassies, no agreements except a weak memo of understanding, no state visits, not much coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It does not appear that Denmark has invaded Moldova since the last deletion. But it does beg the question why? why? why? anyone would recreate this article Vartanza (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Merge- this article has useful information somewhere. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   03:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * redirect to where? LibStar (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I suppose it could be redirected to Foreign relations of Moldova, since it seems to be written from the Moldovan point of view. The limited information in here would easily fit in the FRO articles of the two nations.  Citations should be made to facts like "In 2005 the total volume of the trade with Denmark was 24.400 USD" -- I'm not sure if that means $24.40 (more than was paid for Manhattan), or $24,400 (someone bought a small car?).  While I do understand why-why-why someone would want to write about this, it's not notable enough for a separate article.  Mandsford 12:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Foreign relations of Moldova per Mandsford. (The redirect is in order to comply with the GFDL/CC-BY-SA: we can preserve the history under it.)  I agree that this content is best covered in the Foreign Relations Of articles.— S Marshall  T/C 21:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. And if not keep, merge. A little more time to improve the article after it's been created is in order. I've found a few sources that show a relationship between the countries exists based on political, humanitarian and technical aid. I also still think that these articles should be considered per se notable as has been previously suggested and not just by myself. Plus, I'm notifying the creator of the article (who is new to wikipedia) that the article he created has been nominated for deletion which has not been done by the nominator.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Political, technical and humanitarian assistance section in the article shows they have a notable relationship. Also Moldova has 3.5 million people and a 1/4th of them survive on just $2 a day.  So the financial aid that Denmark gave them(along with Sweden and the UN) for $3 million dollars is probably a significant amount.  Helping them rebuild their country, while the rest of the world seems to be ignoring them.  D r e a m Focus  04:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * the fact that Moldova is a poor country and a rich country is helping is hardly generating a lot of news coverage. the article fails to state how much precisely Denmark is contributing to this. and in any case $3 million over 4 years is a small fraction of Denmark's foreign aid budget. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There appears to be enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.


 * Delete and salt per consensus established a year ago at the previous AfD, although now that ARS has been notified we are sure to get plenty of keep votes. Nothing has changed between these two countries in the last year, and this article should not have been recreated.  These two countries do not have a notable relationship.  See the rough guidelines at International relations.  There are 18,915 2-country combinations (assuming 195 countries in the world).  They don't all deserve articles.    Snotty Wong   gab 05:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. ARS doesn't just go around posting keep everywhere.  Also many people seem to follow the ARS around at times just to say delete, strangely enough.  Could just be my imagination though.   D r e a m Focus  05:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per nominator, as per previous AFD, nothing has changed, salt to stop future recreations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per Off2riorob. Reyk  YO!  02:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Changing my vote, since the history indicates that two editors are actually trying to improve the article, so I disagree with the idea that "nothing has changed". Given that people are actually walking the walk instead of just talking the talk, I'm not going to discourage actual good-faith attempts to improve articles.  There's no reason for this to be "salted" either.  Mandsford 18:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per improvements by editors Richard Arthur Norton and Cdogsimmons being sufficient to establish noteablity. Another change is that bilateral relations have became even more important in the last year due to the rise of multi polarity. E.G. see this Financial Times article about the G8's change of heart just last week to start backing bilateral agreements, another reason why its all the more important for us to cover bilateral relations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (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.