Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German-Libyan 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. The article may be of poor quality but consensus appears to be that the topic is notable (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

German-Libyan relations

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

Even worse than most of the usual foreign relations articles, this one doesn't even mention the embassies that represent each country in the other. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even the minutest attempt was made to create an article of lasting significance here. It is a dictionary entry, with no sources, no references, and no assertion of its unfounded notability. It isn't even as pretty as some of the others brought to AfD in the recent past. This is precisely what wikipedia should never be content to see. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No sources? ahem. Didn't you claim recently to be looking at the articles before you !vote? Submariner 9 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the source? It's an "independant as well as investigative journalism" site. I can't even determine the name of the person who wrote the story, if you can call three paragraphs a news story on such a topic. It fails WP:RS quite badly. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice attempt at reconning but a source which fails RS is a bad source, not "no source". Submariner 9 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no source as far as AfD is concerned. If you can find better the second time around, get on with it. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you could probably find a better source if you spent 2 minutes, but I understand that you are above that kind of thing. Submariner 9 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you, Hilary T, can be excused for not taking these 2 minutes, because 3 minutes after you started the article you had to defend another of your pathetic stubs in AfD. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Hilary didn't know so much about reliable sources at the time. Submariner 9 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The name of the person who wrote the story appears to be "Mathaba" Submariner 9 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * has been blocked as a sockpuppet of -- Blue  Squadron  Raven  20:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Good topic, lousy execution. Needless to say, a very good article could be written about relations between Germany and Libya, which didn't end with the Battle of Tobruk.  This would be ideal for rescue, so I won't vote delete just yet.  However, I don't subscribe to the philosophy of "this piece of crap I created is a stub, you can help Wikipedia by expanding on something I don't want to be bothered with", so no keep vote yet either.  Mandsford (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Current article is worthless, but German-Libyan relations are a notable and very rich topic. Mandsford has mentioned the Battle of Tobruk; more recently there have been things like the terrorist bombing of a disco in Berlin, assistance by German companies in Libyan efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, etc. Ray  Talk 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - whatever expansion can be done (and if all we have is the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, well, that's covered elsewhere, and in any event is far more a function of Libya – United States relations (where it's mentioned)), do note that Libya became independent in 1951, so a 1941 event by definition can't be about "German-Libyan relations". I'd have minimal sympathy for that argument if it involved, say, a Libyan guerrilla force - but it didn't; it was a UK-Germany battle, and might just as well have taken place in Tunisia, Algeria or Egypt. - Biruitorul Talk 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The current content is totally useless, the article was created prematurely. I think if someone really wants to deal with this one, there is enough sex and crime for a thrilling featured article. Example: "Because his companion took off some of her clothes while dancing, Gaddfi's son Seif al-Arab came to blows with the doorman of a discotheque in Munich. According to SPIEGEL sources, the case now even strains the German-Libyan relations." But there would be a lot of work, and it would probably be much better to start with the Libya–EU relations. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. all directly address this topic. I've done half the work by finding some sources, so maybe someone who is concerned by the shortage of content and sources in the article would care to do something contructive by adding some of them? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Phil Bridger, and common sense. Nomination fails WP:FAILN (as almost all of these organised "relations" AfDs do): "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."  All but a handful are "deletions as first resort" in the hope that others outside this group won't notice.  Sad.  T L Miles (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I added in a quote from a major newspaper on how a meeting "ushering in a brand-new relationship between Libya and Germany." And will the people who keep trying to delete things, please search for information first. AFD is suppose to be a last resort, not a first.   D r e a m Focus  22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Sorry Stifle, but this is a somewhat disruptive nom. Asking the question yet again, are any of the nominators even consulting WP:BEFORE. A simple search would have brought up the results of the Battle of Tobruk, and the Berlin disco bombing. Both highly notable incidents, and given the long history of both countries there would be contacts going way before the 1900s. --Russavia Dialogue 07:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this doesn't qualify for speedy keep. Please refactor your comment. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, as I pointed out, we already have articles on those two, the first happened when there was no Libyan state and didn't involve Libyans so much as Britons and Germans; the second, too, is far more a function of US-Libyan relations than of German-Libyan relations. - Biruitorul Talk 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I am seeing far too many articles given "hit and run" deletion nominations when there are easy-to-find reliable sources. A bad article is not a good reason to delete; it is a reason to improve. Phil Bridger's finds are excellent, such as the BBC story about German commandos training Libyans in their spare time! Fences and windows (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tough one There probably is enough for a real article on this topic, given WWII, big german involvement in LIbyan industry, and of course the international politics around that lovable lug Qaddafi. But no one has written an article worth retaining.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The relations are notable - there are sources out there. AfD is not meant for the deletion of poor stubs of notable topics. This is a notable topic, therefore it stays. If nobody else is going to attempt to collate sources and do some writing, I will. Fences and windows (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep AfD's like this are very disappointing. Our long time friend the google search reveals accusations of German nationals training Libyans in anti-terrorism techniques, an economic forum between the countries, a growth in supply of energy from Libya to Germany, a bilateral agreement between the countries following the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin in the 1980s in which Libya was the perpetrator and so on. Nominating this article for deletion, when such a plethora of reliable sources is obviously available, is a tremendous waste of time.--TM 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Another proof that we should require all afds for which its possibly pertinent to have a search made by the nominee to see if there is material. Not strongly  recommended, not advised, required.   DGG (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in knowing that Hilary T created this article and others to make a point. See this confession by a Hilary T sock, and note that this article was in fact created several days after the Thailand–Ukraine relations AfD was opened. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating an article on an obviously notable subject, whatever reason it is done for, does not violate WP:POINT as it is not disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand WP:POINT. It contains a long list of examples, among them some actions that would be considered OK if the motivation wasn't to disrupt. I could easily prove experimentally that you are wrong by creating 100 articles on notable Korean writers, each with content "X is a very important writer notable for getting the Korean equivalent of the Nobel prize in literature. All Korean school children must learn all of his works." But I am not allowed to do that. That's the point of WP:POINT. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll consider that when it becomes mandatory to consult with the administrator who deleted an article before listing at DRV. It can sometimes be better to get the community's opinion, as you say yourself. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep per above and considerable improvements now made to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep per above and considerable improvements now made to the article. Always was notable anyway, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep--I'm slacking on the job, but hadn't voted yet because it seemed obvious that this AfD would be closed quickly; I'm surprised it's still open. The two countries have very meaningful and conflict-rich relationships, and the article, in whatever state it was then or is now, obviously describes a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 11 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)
 * 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.