Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Kiribati 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

France–Kiribati relations

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

relatively minor relationship that could easily be described in a few sentences here Republic_of_Kiribati. non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And your case for deletion is? Rolling Rick (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - it does seem there's nothing very substantive, so I would approve of mentioning any valid information at Foreign relations of Kiribati. There doesn't seem to be a need for a separate article. - Biruitorul Talk 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing substantial to say about this. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (you've got the wrong process) If it can be covered elsewhere the correct course of action is WP:MRFD, not deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - a bit of a deja-vu when I saw information fishing incidents. Here are some sources French Navy escorted Kiribati ship, EU page stating that the Kiribati government allows french vessels to fish in its waters, in 1995, "Kiribati suspends diplomatic relations with France, in protest at the French decision to resume nuclear tests on Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia.", The French leaders meet with Kiribati officials during the France-Oceania Summit. An article stating that the French President met with the High Commissioner of Kiribati . Seems to be some proof that these two nations have relations. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Yet another nomination where WP:BEFORE evidently was not consulted. It won't be the longest of articles, but I challenge anyone to show me that articles need to be 100kb hogs. The relations are clearly notable. --Russavia Dialogue 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, as the initial author. I'd have appreciated being informed by the nominator that he was putting the article up for deletion... It would seem to be common courtesy, not to mention standard procedure. Anyway, I obviously created the article because I felt it was notable. There are noteworthy relations between the two countries, as has been pointed out. Aridd (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient sources have been identified in this AFD to warrant a keep. Smile a While (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles. PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand (i have to admit i didn't know there was a place called "Kiribati" before happening across this.)Bali ultimate (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no unsourced content in the article, so your rationale is erroneous and misleading. Also, your ignorance of Kiribati is utterly beside the point. Notability in an encyclopedia isn't defined by users' ignorance. Aridd (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now at least). The article shows signs of improvement and there is evidence of a relationship. If, given a reasonable amount of time, the article has not been improved substantially, I would argue for its deletion. I worry that people are commenting in these AfDs based on the wider context of all the bilateral relations articles, regardless of whether this one is any good. HJMitchell    You rang?  13:24, 12 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.