Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary – Sri Lanka 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hungary – Sri Lanka relations

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

no evidence of notable relations. google news search doesn't show much LibStar (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Any small amount of relevant information can be moved to either country's foreign relations article. Tim  meh  !  15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is not established by reliable sources. Don't be fooled by all the redlinks - they're generally nonentities, or if not, a single visit is the stuff of news, not evidence of anything more. "Hungary and Sri Lanka far from each other" just about sums it up. And by the way, can we stop flagging this kind of stuff for "rescue"? What exactly is there to "rescue" here? - Biruitorul Talk 16:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - marginally notable. A separate article is better than duplicating content in two articles, one for each country, which would encourage forking. This way it appears in Category:Bilateral relations of Hungary and in Category:Bilateral relations of Sri Lanka Aymatth2 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per fine improvements recently made by Aymatth2. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The newly added coverage is significant and establishes the passing of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the new trade and investment section seems WP:NOT. countries receive trade delegations all the time. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I have removed the heading - but not the content, which seems to flow with the previous content. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country's foreign ministry. Edison (talk) 03:16, 4 May 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)
 * And what is your point? The stubs fail the same guidelines. It is proper to point that out, and the "Delete" arguments in each case have as much merit as if only placed in one AFD. Edison (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The content in the article makes it clearly notable.  D r e a m Focus  06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete article as is entirely hangs on primary sources. No reliable independent sources have seen fit to adress this relationship in any depth beyond the trivial; a blizzard of foreign office press releases of the sort "Hungary and Sri Lanka agree to harmonize import tax regimes" or whatever should not obscure that this fails the GNG. Neither country keeps an embassy in the other and except in cases of war, when two countries care this little about each other, we should follow their lead.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a few newspaper sources from English-language Sri Lankan papers. These meetings and agreements are typically reported by the press. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - these countries have an official relationship and the sources now in the page meet the requirements of WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources, useful information. It could still use a little tidy up, but it should definitely be kept. HJMitchell    You rang?  19:14, 10 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.