Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq–Latvia 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 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Iraq–Latvia relations

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

Non-notable intersection of countries, with less than nothing to say about it. No non-trivial news mentions. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - "with less than nothing to say about it". So I suppose Latvia's involvement with the Iraqi war (126 soldiers) is irrelevant. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  10:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly irrelevant to the topic of diplomatic relations between two countries that soldiers from one country happened to fight against non-government terrorists or subversives in another. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How can the operational presence of one nation's troops in another nation possibly be irrelevant to their diplomatic relations? Let's use a bit of common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move and/ or merge. The information on the Iraq war is good but it doesn't really say anything about diplomatic relations so either change the name or merge it into an article on the war or something. HJMitchell    You rang?  12:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care for the "less than nothing" either; however, this probably could be mentioned in a Foreign relations of Latvia article, which would include the participation (and casualty information) from Latvia's participation in the occupation of Iraq. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of third party coverage. . LibStar (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources for scant content that is there, no coverage of actual article topic; Fails WP:N. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep fighting a war, even in a minor role, is a very notable sort of  foreign relations DGG (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOREASON, to say "expand" is not a reason for how it addresses WP:N. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Expand how? Please do so; otherwise, it's not an argument, it's a declaration of faith. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, random X-Y article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - As two members of a military alliance, and past combatants (Saddam regime) it seems notable. Some sources to strengthen this argument:, , , , , , , , , . A war is definitely notable enough. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added these sources as external links. They certainly show some involvement. Links do not make an article, but these suggest the content could easily be expanded. Then there would be no question of notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. More empty boiler-plate. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the common sense that says that the operational presence of one country's troops in another demonstrates notability of the relationship between them. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They participated in a war against that nation. That is a notable relationship.   D r e a m Focus  17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, one country having operational troops in another certainly indicates notability in my mind. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Then that needs to be noted inside the existing articles.Knobbly (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough reliable sources adress these "relations" in the requisite detail for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - that Latvia had troops in Iraq is documented right over here; why duplicate content needlessly? Other than that, no relations to speak of. - Biruitorul Talk 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Content of article is already available at Foreign relations of Latvia and, as Biruitorul points out, at Multinational force in Iraq, so this article adds nothing new. On top of that, the topic itself--bilateral relations between Iraq and Latvia--does appear to qualify for a stand-alone article under the general notability guidelines. There are no reliable, independent sources cited in the article, and a few minutes searching didn't turn up on the google. Yilloslime T C  00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteKeeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article.Knobbly (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the presence of 150 latvian soldiers in the green zone was about US-Latvian relations, believe me. As you will see if you look, no reliable sources discuss this bilateral relationship in any dept at all. Coverage of a topic (in this case, the bilateral relationship between these two states) by reliable sources in a non-trivial fashion should be a minimum requirement for inclusion here. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete duplicates existing content and the bilateralism itself is trivial. Eusebeus (talk) 18:16, 26 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.