Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Philippines 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   Snow keep and a crash course in the difference between cleanup and deletion for those wanting to delete this. Fram (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Malaysia–Philippines relations

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

Another completely combination. There is a lack of party between these religions. ApprenticeFan talk  contribs 05:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Keep. I generally lean towards a more minimalist view of Wikipedia, but I think this is a reasonable one to at least try and improve. I'd at least suggest looking to see if there are any substantial treaties between them, and both have claims on the Spratly Islands as well. Unlike, say, Kosovo-Peru Relations (one of many such pairings that got thrown up on here), this one has a good basis and probably needs some work, but I seriously doubt that it should be deleted outright.Tyrenon (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Several promising articles at the Google News Archives: . These countries are geographically close to each other, and have substantial populations, so I'm sure the article has more potential than, say, Bhutan–Grenada relations. I don't fully understand the nominator's comments, since there appear to be some words missing. Zagalejo^^^ 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another perfect combination - two quite large countries in the same region, there must be something. What's next, France-Germany relations? NVO (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment there are no sources for this article, only the high related bilateral relations (e.g. Philippines-United States has many sources found). ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 07:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The current standard is to keep only notable ones, and do others in the "relations" articles of each country. This one though is probably within the exception. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment if you guys who want to keep can find some sources, share them, please, so we ignorant masses may be enlightened. Also remove this sentence before you save it: "Malaysia and the Philippines share a one-of-a-kind clandestine relationship rooted on the bases of geography, ethnicity, and political aspirations."  Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - They share a border (maritime, but it's real). Here is an article whose title is "Malaysia-Philippines relations". I agree with you often on these things, but this is a bad example; this one's notable. One of the criteria for the relations "agreement" (or whatever it was), is that they share a border. Shadowjams (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, at least someone actually offers a source instead of blah blah blah about how important this content-less, unreferenced article is. Drawn Some (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I support merge to either Foreign relations of Malaysia or Foreign relations of the Philippines article for sure. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 10:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Does that mean that you're withdrawing your deletion nomination then? Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Malaysia and the Philippines are both major South East Asian countries which share a (somewhat disputed) maritime border off Borneo and in the South East China Sea and are members of many regional bodies. I'm normally polite about AfD nominations, but this was a very careless nomination and seems to have been made without even consulting a map. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The "keep" comments point out that the two countries are physically close. However, the fact that they are close yet there is still nothing to say about the relations indicates that this is another in the series of pointless "X–Y relations" articles. An important clue is that searching Malaysia for "phil", and searching Philippines for "malay", shows that there is nothing to say about Malaysia–Philippines relations. There are over 40,000 pairs of countries. Please wait until you have at least a paragraph to write before creating an article. As Drawn Some noted, the only content in the article is nonsense and will have to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some external links to the article that suggest some ways in which the article could be expanded. Also a picture. There is quite a lot to say about the relationship. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure if this is nominated to make a point of some sort, since I can't figure out even the basis for the nomination. I honestly can't figure out the meaning of "Another completely combination. There is a lack of party between these religions".   As Aymath has demonstrated, there are plenty of sources to show that these neighboring Pacific nations have a relationship, something that is not at all surprising.  Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Disputes: Sabah dispute, Spratly Islands. Both founding members of ASEAN. Strong cultural ties between the Sulu and Sabah peoples. In addition, Malaysia hosted the peace talks between the MILF and the Philippine government. --seav (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolute keep 150,000 news results, thousands of book results, and scholar results such as this demonstrate that there is plenty of notability. Territorial disputes, founding members of ASEAN, etc and added into a nomination which makes exactly zero sense, this is a keeper. --Russavia Dialogue 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - Important relations article between two large Asian countries. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Large list of references to provide something to work with. Given that the countries in question are large Asian countries in close proximity to one another (I think they share a sea border), I would expect that the relations are far more than trivial. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not one single statement in the article is sourced, and the list of External Links are an indiscriminate collection of news articles, none of which show notability of the topic as a whole. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The external links seems to be dumped there for the meantime and will be integrated into the article as citations. For now they are there to show notability, which apparently you did not even browse. Due diligence please. --seav (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dumping links and improving the article are two very different things. And in any case, none of them show notability of the article topic stated by the title of the article, only individual events. Still fails WP:N, unless you'd care to do the work? -- Blue Squadron  Raven  23:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "None" show notability? You must have some warped sense of what notability is. In addition, a deletion discussion should not be used to force improvement of an article. What matters is assertion of notability, which those dumped links do. --seav (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Seav's statements, with the exception that AfD is practically used, maybe rightfully so, to force improvement or force deletion. This isn't a bad thing, but a consequence of normal AfD procedures. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with nominating for AfD to force improvement. See WP:BEFORE. Nominator should check for references, and if it is clear that the article has potential should consider expanding it themselves, or notify editors who have worked on it that it needs expansion. Much more time has been wasted on this discussion than has been spent on the current rough expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In no way am I saying that this is a good example of what should be nominated, or that there's any evidence WP:BEFORE was followed. WP:BEFORE is frequently misused as an argument at AfD to subtly not assume good faith, but this AfD is one of the rare legitimate targets for that argument. I'm making a very minor point largely unrelated to this discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have integrated the dumped links into the article as citations. It is still skeletal, and I encourage other editors to expand. The subject is rich, complex, important and deserves much deeper coverage. A focused search on specific topics, such as "Malaysia Mindanao" would yield many more and better sources. But I have a huge backlog of real-life work to clear before going on vacation, so just do not have time. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note from his user page that this !voter is very proud of his achievements in creating articles about laughably trivial aspects of nerddom. How on Earth could anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that Malaysia–Philippines relations are less notable that a single episode of Battlestar Galactica? Come on guys, we're supposed to building an encyclopedia here, not a directory of fanboy trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that the minutiae of SF series are much more notable than these tin pot countries. I think it's outrageous that Data's pet cat Spot doesn't even have his own page when stupid things like United Kingdom – United States relations do. Fences and windows (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A massive WP:TROUT for the nominator. Complete failure to look for sources, complete failure to engage common sense, and an incoherent nomination to top it off. Fences and windows (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a nice timeline of the relations between the two countries on the site of the Philippines embassy in Kuala Lumpar. Fences and windows (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. According to their userboxes ApprenticeFan is Filipino, making it unlikely that this nomination was made in ignorance of the significance of the relations between the Philippines and Malaysia. I don't like to suggest this, but I think this was a bad faith nomination. Fences and windows (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This nomination, and the fact that that it has been supported by 2 1/2 editors, leave me speechless. I'll come back later with specifics because anything I want to say now would violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Malaysia and the Philippines have very important ties that are now reliably sourced-- Lenticel  ( talk ) 05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Snow - It's time for WP:SNOW on this. I'd prefer an uninvolved admin do it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 29 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.