Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Malta 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Iceland–Malta relations

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

another laughable combination from the obsessive article creator. no notable relationships, non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - funny, but non-notable in the utmost. - Biruitorul Talk 08:37, 24 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. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Drmies (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the many precedents. Dahn (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Rather than having 203 grab 2 = 20503 silly stub articles which violate WP:N and WP:NOT a directory or collection of miscellaneous information, how about sticking with a "Foreign relations of ..." section in the articles about any country with notable foreign relations? Politics of Malta and Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Iceland) seem to be where enthusiastic article creators should focus their efforts, rather than creating these robostubs. A link to the official site for the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which lists the countries where they have embassies and consulates, is far better than blasting these silly roboarticles all over Wikipedia, because the info in their official website is much more likely to stay up to date than these stubs created by a onetime pass of someone's computer.  If the diplomatic history is too long to fit in an article on, say, France, there could be a separate article, as there is on the foreign relations of France, or even one on U.S-China relations, or diplomacy between Germany and Russia before the 1939 invasion of Poland. There are scads of books with substantial coverage of such topics. But most of these article have no content other than restating the the title means what it says, and whether the 2 have some sort of diplomacy between them,when it was established, and where the embassies are located. Edison (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:13, 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. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations LibStar (talk) 13:36, 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. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep pending discussion on what to do with these. DGG (talk) 17:36, 1 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.