Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaica–Malaysia 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. The keep side has shown that there are sufficient sources which can or have been cited. The main argument of the delete side is that there is nothing special, and that we would end up with 19110 articles on each bilateral relation. This is not a valid deletion rationale - Wikipedia is not on paper, and with 4 million articles already, 19110 is a relatively small number. Deryck C. 16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jamaica–Malaysia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. this article is based on a 2006 meeting between the prime ministers where they promised the usual want to cooperate more. no evidence of actual relations like trade, migration etc. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Out of pure reason; there is nothing remarkable about the relation between these two countries. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 04:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete unless we want to create 19110 articles describing the relationships between all 195 countries (math is awesome!). Andrew327 08:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (hunts around for the "Like" button on Wikipedia)PianoDan (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unrelated Comment It's right here: Template:Like Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 20:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG. There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article. Source examples include, but are not limited to (some are non-English):
 * Malaysia, Jamaica agree to an oil and gas venture
 * Jamaica seeking partners to explore markets in Americas
 * "Jamaica, Malaysia hold preliminary talks on several trade issues"
 * Major deals clinched in Jamaica
 * Malaysian PM to visit Ja next Tuesday
 * Malaysia to get Jamaican athletics coaches
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 09:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 of these articles are based on the May 2006 meeting between the prime ministers. important to note whilst this was the usual handshake will cooperate more meeting no specific agreement was reached during the bilateral talks, I fail to see ongoing major coverage besides the 2006 meeting. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agre - these don't get past WP:NOTNEWS. PianoDan (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to allow discussion of the above sources.  Sandstein   23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Northamerica1000's arguments. NickSt (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, international relations are a staple encyclopedic topic and are part of Wikipedia's mandate as a gazzeteer under the WP:5P. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin editor has recycled this argument many a time, without addressing the specifics of the AfD in question. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I once saw a wise admin note in an AfD close, every !vote and comment should be a "note to closing admin". You don't give your opinions any greater value by formatting them as memos to the top of the food chain, and I, at least, have always been taught that it's rude to speak about someone in the third person while they're "present". Regardless, unless you want to accuse The Bushranger of being a spambot, there's absolutely no rule against repeating AFD !votes, especially on topics on whose notability you have a categorical opinion. — PinkAmpers   &#38;   ( Je vous invite à me parler )  09:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When multiple AfDs can be refuted by the same argument, I use the same argument. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:08, 26 January 2013 (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.