Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Malaysia 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Georgia–Malaysia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. Could not find evidence of notable relations. Those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of coverage LibStar (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, multiple articles covering relations between the two countries can be found in reliable sources (e.g., 1 2 3 4). FOARP (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is made up of only 4 sentences that offer no detail about this relationship... does it not make more sense to just merge? ⌚️ (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per FOARP. That's sufficient, but I think it's also worth noting that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head. Simply put, the GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable") because it makes far more sense to put encyclopedic information about Georgia-Malaysia relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Georgia and Malaysia articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ADHOM applies here. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge This article has almost no content. We'd better served by merging the minimal content into the respective "Foreign Relations of..." articles. Yilloslime (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per FOARP. Tymon. r  Do you have any questions?  01:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the tone taken by, and particularly by , to be somewhat problematic - you can surely explain your thinking objectively without criticising the nominator? It's possible that a decent and properly sourced article could be written about this subject, which is why I'm !voting keep, but let's be clear about what the current article is - a dictionary definition, and three unsourced assertions, telling the reader in which year the two countries established diplomatic relations, and where their embassies are - it's not TNT-worthy, but it is pretty poor, I don't blame the nom for thinking it's unhelpful. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:47, 3 March 2020 (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.