Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Myanmar 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo–Myanmar relations

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Just replicating content from International_recognition_of_Kosovo. There is little chance of expansion of this article. Also nominating: LibStar (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Kosovo–Moldova relations
 * Kosovo–Mauritius relations
 * Kosovo–Mexico relations
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Mauritius, Myanmar, Kosovo, Moldova,  and Mexico.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The articles have been created because WP:ARTICLESIZE is currently an issue International recognition of Kosovo, at around 65 KB of readable prose size. The policy establishes that long articles should be split into smaller ones, and since their creation, content has been trimmed in the main one, meaning that the text is not merely duplicated, not to mention that the articles have sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete The specific Kosovo-Myanmar relations article has little chance of expansion and contains the exact same text as Myanmar's table entry in International recognition of Kosovo. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all Revisiting this after relisting and looking at other articles, some may meet GNG. However, for bilateral relations articles, there should be more to say than just recognition. I believe, all should be deleted and the original International recognition of Kosovo article be reworked to reduce WP:ARTICLESIZE.
 * Based on quick google searches, Kosovo-Myanmar and Kosovo-Mauritius had no articles, and only had travel/visa/database-type pages. Kosovo-Mexico has a few sources, including some about Serbia-Mexico regarding Kosovo. But all are primary sources. Kosovo-Moldova has, outside the two already used, only articles about football matches (routine coverage, not WP:GNG).  EmeraldRange  (talk/contribs) 21:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Not seeing evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent, non-primary sources. Yilloslime (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important topic that satisfies GNG. Serratra (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In what way does it meet GNG? All these articles only have 1 or 2 sources, have you looked for significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , just another troll. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Kosovo–Myanmar relations – Nobody has shown that the article meets WP:GNG. There is only one reference, while WP:GNG requires multiple reliable, independent sources. I also can't immediately tell whether the website cited actually meets WP:RS. Regarding WP:SIZERULE, I don't think we can create articles that lack notability just to get around another article being long; the editors at that page will have to find some other solution. As for the other three, I'm less sure. They have two sources each but in none of the three cases were both sources clearly WP:RS (Moldova seems closest).  Gazelle55  Let's talk!  10:28, 6 February 2023 (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.