Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Slovakia 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. As of yet, there is not consensus to suspend bilateral relations AfDs. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Latvia–Slovakia relations

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

distinct lack of coverage of relations between these 2 nations, mainly multilateral and sport. . there's 1 bilateral agreement I found but would need more coverage of actual bilateral relations. They played a World cup qualifier in 2004 which I know at least one editor would think this means bilateral relations and worthy of inclusion in the article, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They are EU and NATO members, Slovakia has an embassy in Riga, etc. Their relations deserve an article. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * they deserve an article if they meet WP:N, you haven't provided any reliable sources proving wide coverage of their relations. common membership of EU and NATO does not prove notable relations. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable enough for a separate article - leave it to the single country ones. Collect (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has no useful content and expansion is unlikely. No sources discuss these relations. Fails notability. When we say that the relations between X and Y are not notable, we do not imply there is something wrong with X or Y – "deserves" is not relevant. Any country with a few million people is going to have some relations with almost every other country, but some relations will not be notable. Every country will have a leader who issues announcements. We only have articles on the notable announcements, and we should only have articles on notable relations. Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the new way of handling these (see [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations]] and WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force). JJL (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can show non-trivial coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. We can't use WP:SYNTHESIS to create a topic for an article out of bits and pieces we seek out.  The topic itself must be notable.  Any significant information could be added to other articles with notable topics. Drawn Some (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing that makes these two special over any other pair.-- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnotable and unsubstantial. Eusebeus (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. So they are EU and NATO members. How does that make their RELATIONSHIP notable? If you and I belong to the same country club and say hi in passing on the golf course, is that a relationship? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * agree with above, without reliable sources covering actual meetings, common membership doesn't mean you actually talk to each other, maybe over a tea break at a NATO meeting? LibStar (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suspend the discussion! The notice from Administrators' noticeboard suggests a no consensus on all of the bilateral relations articles (X-Y Relations). Until further resolutions are made, the discussions should be suspended. See AN for more details. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * no, this standstill is purely a proposal that has no standing until endorsed by consensus. others have agreed that existing AfDs will be allowed to run their course. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - unsurprisingly, third-party in-depth coverage of this relationship seems nonexistent, so we should delete for failing WP:N. - Biruitorul Talk 02:16, 15 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.