Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finland–Mongolia 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 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Finland–Mongolia relations

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

another random combination, non resident embassies, seems to be little media coverage of bilateral relations except chess tournaments they've competed in. . Finnish foreign ministry says nothing! not really rescuable LibStar (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete after the bilateral relations group has had a chance to scavenge any info. from it. JJL (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, if information is saved, then the history needs to be saved for attribution purposes. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent coverage of the article's stated topic as a whole. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  05:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacking encyclopedic content. If any sources are found, the relevant information can be included in the Foreign relations articles for the countries involved. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Honorary consulates are just that and chess matches are only notable as foreign relations under certain circumstances, such as the Cold War.  Fails the "significant coverage" test of WP:NOTE.  Deleting one of the most worthless of these odd pairings every now and again is more helpful than not. Drawn Some (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- with 203 countries, there is a potential for many thousands of these articles (e.g. Greenland+Nepal, Nepal+Vanuatu ad (almost) infinitum). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete More WP:N whimsy. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * very weak Keep as two countries with very problematic interests with the intervening country, there is probably something interesting if people looked. Very week keep, not keep, because i cant keep up with researching as fast as people can keep nominating. DGG (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "probably something interesting if people looked" -- that doesn't seem a very strong reason to keep. Moreover, given Russia's size we will have a great number of these based on that reasoning som -- as noted below -- on opposite sides of the world. I think a stronger a priori reason is needed. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Russia's a bit of a special case as an "intervening country"; Finland and Mongolia are on opposite sides of the world. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mgm. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There isn't a relationship. Policy whizzes, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure, at the very least, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and so on and so forth require, if implicitly, that the subject of an article actually exists! In this case, there is no relationship of which to speak, thus there is nothing to keep or merge. HJMitchell    You rang?  00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, random X-Y intersection article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable secondary sources adress these relations. Hipocrite (talk) 04:53, 20 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.