Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icelandic–Kosovan 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. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Icelandic–Kosovan relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was previously nommed as part of a group. The result of that debate was "merge" to International recognition of Kosovo. The information in this stub, that Iceland recognized Kosovo's independence, is already present in the target article. A "merge" discussion (which would just make this a redirect} hasn't gotten any traction (2 arguing in favor, the creator of the article arguing against). Since this stub has no room for expansion -- since there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth at all -- lets delete this (no info would thereby be lost since it's already contained at the "recognition of" article. I would have no opposition to a redirect being created after deletion, but note that this is a highly implausible search term. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice. "relations" articles as a genre not acceptable, due to inherent violation of synth. In addition, this is Yet More Kosovo Spam, sorry. Finally, should have been merged already. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with prejudice. Already merged. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note Merge and delete. Per the GFDL, we cannot delete the edit histories of merged articles.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't understand GFDL. An unsourced assertion that "iceland recognized kosovo's independence" (a fact noted in a different way in the appropriate article already) has no bearing on deletion here, certainly is no obstacle. Really, you don't understand the policy. This article is a content fork. If someone redirects after deletion, i won't cry any tears but, again, there is no GFDL issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you do not understand our attribution guidelines. If anything originally attributed by one user is merged elsewhere in any manner, then we must preserve the original contributor's attribution for public record.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no content to merge. That X recognized Z was already included in that article, long ago. There are no attribution issues, no GFDL issues.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If a previous discussion closed as merge and someone did in fact do so, then we cannot delete per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)My understanding was that the articles were already merged ("An administrator merges the article history into the merge target along with the content.") If they were not already merged, then delete as having no content worth retaining, and warn someone for violating WP:CON/WP:GAMEHipocrite (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're playing the fool, nobody. That Iceland recognized Kosovo's independence was included in International recognition of Kosovo on March 5, 2008, the day the recognition was formally made . This article, currently under discussion for deletion, was created in August 2008, more than 5 months later. There is no GFDL issue associated with deleting this article and allowing the simple fact that "x recognized z" to continue to persist in its original home. I'm sorry you can't grasp this. Truly.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think it wrong that Estonia–Luxembourg relations was undeleted despite comments in an AfD and DRV, then why bring this here after a discussion that closed as "merge" whether it was merged or not. If that was the consensus of the first discussion, then just leave the redirect in place instead of going around the earlier consensus.  We don't need to keep having the same discussions over and over.  We should instead be focusing on article improvement.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Robostub fails notability and is a directory-like listing, failing WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Bali ultimate prejudges the facts and makes the amazing claim that "this stub has no room for expansion -- since there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth at all". There clearly are and I've added some to the article. In this article released by Iceland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs after Kosovo's declaration of independence, the claim is made that it is "crucial that the international community continue to support reconstruction in Kosovo" signaling that Iceland will continue to support Kosovo economically. Disagree with subjective claims about "non-notability". The bilateral relations of nation states are notable and encyclopedic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what "reliable, independent sources" are at all, do you. Ponder on that word "independent" and then ponder "released by Iceland's ministry of foreign affairs" and see how they're related. Also, ponder what "in any depth." Might mean. I ask you to ponder all of this before you, basically, call me a liar again.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. We don't need to turn this into a mud-slinging contest. As you note, there are several qualifiers you use in your description of sources as either "independent" or "in depth". When I say that such articles exist, you might have assumed that we could have different opinions about what your vague terminology encompasses. Instead you lashed out at me saying that I "have no idea" of what you're talking about. Please don't take my questioning your subjective judgment about the worthiness of this article as a personal attack. We just disagree. Leave it at that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N not met Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep When one country sends help to another, and states they'll continue to help financially help to support them, that sounds like a notable relationship to me.  D r e a m Focus  10:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Iceland isn't going to be giving much aid to anyone. If you haven't been keeping up with financial news, the entire country has basically gone bankrupt when their entire financial system collapsed bringing the government down with it.  The whole country is in shambles, their currency is worthless, they even had to get an IMF loan. Shameful really. Here's a timeline: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7851853.stm Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relations established in the past but discontinued today can still count as notable relations. (See Cuba-United States relations) "Worthless"?!? "Shameful"?!? Comments reflect a systematic bias.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously you don't understand what systematic bias is, please read what you linked to. Drawn Some (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject of article is non-notable, independent references do not exist to supply in-depth significant coverage. Delete completely and absolutely, no redirects, disambigs, etc., not a likely search term anyway.  Leave nothing but a warning about re-creating a deleted page.  Salt. Drawn Some (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the info on "Iceland, as the only NATO country without a military, sent police officers, nurses and legal experts " could easily be contained in 1 or 2 lines in Foreign relations of Kosovo. and Drawn Some makes the important point that Iceland is very highly unlikely to give any more foreign aid in the forseeable future. Certainly no evidence of ongoing relations and the most important point of recognition is covered elsewhere. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Iceland is trying to do the best for Kosovo. Relations between these two countries are obviously notable. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  09:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "trying to do their best"? when is that a criterion for notability? If they were trying to do their best they would open up trade channels, open up an embassy, take a certain number of Kosovars as refugees. And you're again using another argument to avoid WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - that Iceland recognises Kosovo is documented at International recognition of Kosovo. To the extent the ICRU's activities there are notable (I highly doubt it), cover it at Iceland Crisis Response Unit. And please mind WP:GNG - Icelandic-government sources can't be used to validate the notability of actions of the Icelandic government. - Biruitorul Talk 18:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A strong keep. I'm not understanding this notion of deleting important inter-state relations as if we don't have room for them. --alchaemia (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just another note of more canvassing by Turkish Flame here's Alchaemia and then there's   and .Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Content already merged after previous discussion, no notability established here. JohnCD (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable trivia. — Emil J. 12:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--Liridon 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete content already merged. WP:N is not met--I see no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Yilloslime T C  16:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTCASE. The world has around 200 countries. If you write an article on every country's relationship with every other country, that would be around 40,000 articles. Sebwite (talk) 22:35, 4 June 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.