Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourg–Vietnam 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   no consensus. BJ Talk 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Luxembourg–Vietnam relations

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

another random combination, no resident embassies. statements like this show the vagueness of relations http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/nr040807104143/nr040807105001/ns080312090247 LibStar (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly yourself. If the centralised discussion produces any guidelines (it may not) with sufficient detail to affect borderline cases such as this one (very unlikely), then these guidelines will be based on the results of this discussion and similar discussions. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no third-party sources to indicate any notability whatsoever. - Biruitorul Talk 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire Another article on nothing whatsoever. Dahn (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The material in the ref given by the nominator shows notability,--Im referring to all the items listed there, not jsutthe headline. DGG (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, that's great. Maybe now I can finally start a website about my cat, and use it as a source on a wikipedia about my cat. Sure, it will be a primary source, but it will be enough to attest its own notability. Right? Also, I'll make sure to mention the effectiveness of the multi-faceted cooperation between my cat and another cat, so nobody could say it lacks content "beyond the headline". Dahn (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; the test that I am applying to these articles is that there are significant bilateral relations, which are important to the two countries, and which can be reliably sourced. This is the case. Here, Vietnam calls on Luxembourg to support its ties with EU and is backing Luxembourg’s candidacy for the post of non-permanent member at the UN Security Council. Here, prior to a state visit, Vietnam is referred to as one of the ten key countries in Luxembourg’s development cooperation program. Here, they are bolstering trade links. Luxembourg provides significant aid to Vietnam, here. The countries have agreed a legal framework to facilitate business ties, here. Vietnam has become Luxembourg’s largest aid recipient, here. Smile a While (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Smile a While's sources meet the general notability guidelines.  This is not just a puff relationship (although all relationships have some puff).  A variety of interactions documented in reliable sources shows a significant relationship. Cool3 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly enough references from various sources. Bastin 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Ikip (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This relationship is of so little value to the states involved that they don't bother to maintain an ambassador in each other's capitals. None of the sources provided rise above the trivial, and none of the independent ones discuss this relationship as a thing in itself. Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Most of the refs are sourced to the Vietnamese government, which does not appear to satisfy the "independent" part of "reliable and independent sources" needed to satisfy notability. Where are reliable third party sources writing about this "relationship?" Edison (talk) 06:24, 5 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.