Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish-Swedish 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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Finnish-Swedish_relations
This article covers topics which are thoroughly addressed in the history sections of Finland and Sweden's articles and uses them in a article which is very soapboxy. Adamrush 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up, as I made an attempt to do. Foreign relations are notable; see U.S.-Canada relations or, if we want to get really specific, Mexican response to Hurricane Katrina.  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course foreign relations are notable. However, the future acceptable article is not going to contain any of the present one; it will be a complete rewrite out of POV necessity. That's the issue.  Deleting the article doesn't mean that the article isn't warranted, but rather the article's current content.  Deleting this entry is clean up. --Adamrush 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the name be Finno-Swedish relations? Punkmorten 01:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep and clean up. --LesleyW 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep & cleanup as per others Scoo 10:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If this article is cleaned up, it will be content-free. It consists only of a table which is merely a soapbox and, if corrected, would correspond to many paragraphs of as-yet unwritten text.  --Adamrush 15:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is unreferenced, contextless POV. There is nothing to cleanup. "Cudgel War: alienation Finns–Swedes" - says who? Why? How? The topic of Finnish-Swedish relations is important and interesting, but this is really not the article which Wikipedia should have on the topic. Any article on this topic has to be started from scratch. If this is kept I suggest erasing everything in the article which is not sourced and properly discussed in its historical context. u p p l a n d 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Sorry i'm a bit late in the discussion here (did not notice there are separate afd-talk pages), but even though the decision is already made i thought i'd give it my comments for the record. I agree with Uppland about this article being so bad that there is jsut two choises, deletion, and or re-write pretty much from scratch. I think this is also such a big matther that teh person re-qriting it should have a specific perspective in the area (not just "i feel that..."). SO unless no-one steps forward to edit it throughly deleting it could be a good idea auntil someone does write a better one.


 * 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.