Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Luxembourgian 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.  Jamie ☆ S93  17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovan–Luxembourgian relations

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

No reliable sources establish in any way that this is a notable bilateral relationship. All that reliable sources allow us to say about these two countries is that Luxembourg recognized Kosovo's independence. Efforts to redirect this to a useful target (i would favor International recognition of Kosovo) have been reverted. I have no opposition to a redirect after deletion, but consider this to be a highly implausible search term for people interested in a list of countries that have, or have not, recognized kosovo's indepdendence. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This recognition is very important but it is better covered in the article suggested by Bali ultimate. I don't see the level of in-depth coverage of the topic that one would expect to see in order to establish notability of the subject of this article.  Drawn Some (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a directory of embassies. No independent coverage of the article's stated topic as a whole. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable in my opinion. Luxembourg contributes €30 million to Kosovo already now. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE no demonstration of how this is notable. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * €30 million to Kosovo can easily be covered in 1 line in Foreign relations of Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Has Monaco-Tuvalu been up for deletion yet? The proposed single country articles will stop this, I hope. Collect (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked. By some miracle our obsessive-compulsive stub creator didn't do that one. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  22:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with being so short. But it doesn't mean it can't be improved. --♪♫ Berkay 0652 10:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note some canvassing going on by turkish flame (yes the "message" is neutral, the audience all have voted keep on these sorts of afd's in the past).   .Bali ultimate (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Turkish Flame forgot Richard A Norton who votes keep without fail. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete clearly 2 small countries like this are never going to have any notable relations, no notable trade, no diplomatic conflicts, unless Luxembourg becomes a major trading partner to Kosovo, this is close to the most non notable of non notables. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article should stay and contribute, and I am completely against deletion.--Liridon 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep --Sintonak.X (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE is not valid. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nominator sums it nicely. Keep votes have not provided any rationale that would make me think otherwise. Yilloslime T C  22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and precedent.--Avala (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Kosovo for "Luxembourg", and Luxembourg for "Kosovo" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. The tiny piece of information in this article should be in the article for each country (except, because the information is essentially trivial, it probably will not be added in practice). Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 28 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.