Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Taiwan 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Latvia–Taiwan relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

there is nothing to these relations except lack of recognition, which means that any interactions between the 2 countries are very limited. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete there's nothing substantial here in the way of relations. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. This book on post-Cold War Taiwanese relations devotes an entire chapter to Latvia and the interplay of Latvia-Taiwanese relations and those with the PRC. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually quite interesting, Latvia was a short time the only country to have a diplomatic relationship with taiwan and china. Enough sources for WP:GNG: [
 * I can't see the source Patar pointed out, but yeah, enough coverage even if may seem to be uninteresting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Lack of recognition some time may generate more interest than friendly relation relationship. The source in the article and those pointed above will surely meet GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2018 (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.