Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malawi–Malaysia 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Malawi–Malaysia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. originally the article was a direct copy of this. I can find almost no third party coverage of this relationship except this article. all other coverage is multilateral and passing mentions. . Bilateral relations are not inherently article, if you want to show they meet the 5 pillars of WP, demonstrate actual significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Lack of third party coverage, if at all. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. While bilateral relations are (as I've said before many times in these discussions) a core and essential encyclopedic topic, this "article" is literally only "X is Y, and both A and B are Z". There is literally no content on the subject of the article here. WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Please note that I have improved the article since it was nomintated. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

— 143.105.49.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Kudos to 99of9 for expanding the article significantly. More expansion is feasible using sources which demonstrate formal bilateral relations such as this. Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok, this discussion and others like it make me think that we need a solid consensus on bilateral relations.  Where should I look to start a discussion on this?  Howicus (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements. Well doen!  --143.105.49.234 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor has been blocked as a sock. Mkdw talk 07:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Encyclopedic topic, adequate sources showing to pass our General Notability Guideline, in my estimation. This, additionally, sorta well done as far as these Country A-Country B Relations articles tend to be... Carrite (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to be well sourced due to subsequent expansion.'Malawi–Malaysia relations' is basically an omnibus title. Searching for things such as the individual trade agreements reveals potential expansion of which information would be suitable for this article. The more of these AfD's that appear show a clear need for a policy on diplomatic related articles. Mkdw talk 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I cannot see any circumstances where diplomatic relations between 2 sovereign nations cannot be notable. Unless we're talking Vanuatu and the Conch Republic - which Malawi (10 m) and Malaysia (26 m) aren't. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * bilateral relations are not inherently notable, over 100 have been deleted. Significant coverage in sources not population size is what determines notability. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And far more have been saved. It usually depends on how many people notice and show up to comment.   D r e a m Focus  14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is still wrong to say bilateral articles are inherently notable like say a geographic location. Inherently notable is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep These nations share knowledge with each other, learn from each other, and join together with one other to set the price of their main product, tea. They have a notable relationship.   D r e a m Focus  14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the level of trade using 1996 figures is only a meagre $1M, does not indicate even a minor trading relationship. One article about tea (noting this is far from Malaysia biggest agricultural product) is far from significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2013 (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.