Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Mauritius 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) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Malaysia–Mauritius relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. this article relies on a primary source with vague details as "Cooperation between the two countries ranges from cultural exchanges, to trade in goods, financial assistances, capacity building in various sectors.". keep votes should show actual evidence of third party coverage and not simply say bilateral relations are notable. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – The overall topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Source examples include (but are not limited to):, , , , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – if the article has only one reference is not a good reason to delete it. Also if it is too vague, it can be expanded.   .Kingroyos (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - they're both primary sources. and a one hour meeting is hardly adding to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The two countries have no special relations that make this article more than WP:ROUTINE. Howicus (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hello Howicus: what's your personal criteria for "special relations," as opposed to other types of relations?" Please consider providing further rationale, as it is possible that the closer of this discussion may otherwise not provide much weight to your !vote, because it's somewhat ambiguous. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that special relations have to be more than just trade for a separate article to be merited. Every country trades with the other countries in their areas.  To merit an article, there has to be something exceptional about the relations, such as a treaty, or disaster relief, or some international incident.  Incidentally, this discussion and others like it are making me think that it might be a good idea to develop a firm consensus on notability of bilateral relations.  Howicus (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing your perspective. Just so you know, it is appreciated. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 03:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I looked at the first few of NorthAmerica's refs, and they satisfy GNG IMO. --99of9 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Northamerica1000. Yup, there's many sources from google news if you try to find it. Plus, this article are still young and need more attention from other editors to expand it. &mdash; иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ! 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:51, 16 January 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.