Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Kenya 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Malaysia–Kenya relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Haven't we had enough of these articles, and these discussions. i see no references here that expand upon the basic relations articles, and there are additional articles from this editor that do the same thing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For those who haven't seem them could you give a precis of "these discussions" - I take it there have been some discussions on A-B relations articles? Or link to an example? thanks. Babakathy (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I have had enough of these nominations, which seem quite disruptive. It only takes a moment to find material which might be used to expand this stub.  For example, see Malaysia and Singapore in international diplomacy. Warden (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the bigger picture here: "enough of these articles" vs. "enough of these nominations"? Babakathy (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What's being referred to is the many articles that cover relations between two countries who don't have particularly notable ties. I'm dubious about the notability of many of these articles - this one seems to hinge on a port agreement. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force may be relevant here. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some bilateral relations articles are appropriate for inclusion, but preferably they should be about pairs of countries which have had significant interaction in international affairs as measured by the general notability guideline. The fact that Malaysia and Kenya, which are described as having "a long history of warm and friendly bilateral relations", managed to spend most of their history as independent countries without having diplomatic missions to each other tends to suggest that their interaction has not been that significant. (Note that I am not saying that countries must have diplomatic relations for their relations to be notable; hostile relationships with no diplomatic relations can be notable too.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are two sources in the article plus that cited by Warden above, plus this, this and this after a quick search. I think this is "significant coverage". Babakathy (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic appears to be notable, including coverage in Yahoo News. The article was nominated for deletion about a day after it was created, which doesn't allow much reasonable time for other editors to copy edit, expand, improve the article, etc. Nominating a stub article for deletion right after it is created puts the article on a timer, but in this case, the timer likely isn't necessary. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources are showing to indicate this is a topic discussed in multiple, reliable, independent published sources. To the nominator's rhetorical question: Haven't we had enough of these articles, and these discussions? — Yes on both counts. But the only time I ever see these low-value pieces is when someone gets all upset and hauls them to AfD. Just let it go, people who hate this genre, there are millions of articles on WP and most of them are of equally low value. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick Google news search shows some results such as . Others have found plenty of things as well.    D r e a m Focus  20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG per extensive sources listed above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2012 (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.