Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Guyana relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Greece-Guyana relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. this link demonstrates no notable relationship.
 * Delete - granted, this just went through AfD, but the sources found then showed no evidence of a notable relationship (presidential visits and the like generally being the stuff of news), and no possibility of expanding the article has been shown in the interim, either. - Biruitorul Talk 05:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Keep trying as many times as necessary. Goesquack (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some hint that this might just possibly be notable, perhaps, on a good day - but there are so many of these that I think it has to be up to the article to establish notability or we'll be here all day. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. In addition, a renomination after only 2 weeks seems a bit excessive. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above should be disregarded as a vote for keep as it does not assess the notability of the article. it was heading for WP:SNOW in any case. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. And what do you mean it was heading for WP:SNOW? Another nomination of this article at AfD not even 2 weeks ago was closed as no consensus. Not a case for SNOW by any standard. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteNothing substantial, indeed nothing logical in this pairing. Why it wasn't deleted the first time is beyond me. Dahn (talk) 17:13, 28 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.