Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary–Laos 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hungary–Laos relations

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

another random combination. non resident embassies. google news doesn't reveal much about relations either LibStar (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as there is nothing unique about their relational status. There is one funny sentence in the article: "Both countries far from each other." Tavix | Talk  00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete particularly non-notable intersection; article even seems to be poking fun at itself. JJL (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources to indicate any notability. Both countries were Communist in 1975-89, but in the absence of any documentation of there having been notable relations even then, deletion is the answer. - Biruitorul Talk 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.Edison (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs. (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If the articles fail to satisfy the same guidelines, and if any useful info would be most encyclopedically presented in 200 articles rather than 20,000, then what is wrong with repeating the argument? How much rewriting and variation of phraseology is required to satisfy Ikip or the WP:ELEGANTVARIATION guideline I have not been able to find? Edison (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment that's been my reasoning too. Nothing at Centralized_discussion/Bilateral_international_relations has convinced me otherwise--the usual reasons for deleting these are that they're a random pairing of countries with a non-notable relationship. WHat more is there to say? They all fail WP:N in exactly the same way. JJL (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Tavix, my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no reliable sources that discuss a subject? Then no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:28, 5 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.