Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Serbia 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   speedy keep. per WP:SNOW (no prejudice against relisting in a couple of months if no improvements occur). Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

France–Serbia_relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another one of those ridiculous articles on foreign relations between two countries that states nothing beyond the fact that diplomatic relations exist. Delete Pstanton (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 01:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - France had a lot to say during the Yugoslav wars, participating in bombings and hosting the Rambouillet Agreement; there are a healthy number of Serbs in France; the two were allies (albeit in different theatres, and with a WWII "France" operating from London) in WWI and WWII; France was deeply involved in the Little Entente (France saw itself as Yugoslavia's protector); and relations were strained in the 1960s because de Gaulle would not forgive Tito for having executed General Mihailovich. The question is: is this enough for a coherent standalone article, or is the material better covered across several articles? I lean toward the latter, so I guess this qualifies as a "weak delete". - Biruitorul Talk 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable and has great room for expansion. Relations established in the late 19th century, and then there's that whole World War I thing that happened. In light of history, relations between European nations would generally meet basic notability, and should be expanded. --Russavia Dialogue 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It would be expected that these countries would have substantial involvement, from WWI, WWII, and later. At the very least, lone should conduct a minimal search before nominating. it does not help get rid of the many inappropriate articles here to nominate the expandable ones without discrimination. The material  Biruitorul  found is enough for an unambiguous keep.   DGG (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is one of the relations articles that is worth keeping. It could use some referenced expansion, but the history of these two countries justifies an article. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep given the history between both countries, I think this is a bilaterial relations article that ought to be kept. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep Unlike most of the X-Y foreign relations articles, this one has a significant history behind it (especially with two World Wars). Pastor Theo (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep Easily meets WP:N Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep This is what happens if we start throwing the baby out with the bathwater with these bilateral relations articles. It makes one wonder about how much thought has gone into the deletion rationales of some of the other articles listed recently. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:32, 22 April 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.