Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary–Libya 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungary–Libya relations

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

whilst these 2 countries have embassies, I could not find any real coverage of bilateral relations only in multilateral context. . the only exception was this but doesn't make an article though. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete due to little grounds for an article. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 11:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by "weak delete" as opposed to "delete" please? Drawn Some (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, lacks notability, would need significant in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources which are lacking, if anyone finds such please notify me to reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not the worst, but still fits combinations and permutations argument. Collect (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Searching Hungary shows no mention of Libya, and searching Libya shows no mention of Hungary. Common sense confirms the articles: there is nothing notable about these relations. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No third-party coverage of the topic as a whole means no notability. -- Blue Squadron  Raven
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are some relevant news articles, but the notability just isn't there. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete where is the in depth coverage of the topic of this article (the bilateral relationship) that we would need to even consider including such an article?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks sufficient notability. Hobartimus (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Speedy - no content. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 31 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.