Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Serbia 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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Malaysia–Serbia relations

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

non-notable relational article. Merely having relations does not make it notable. Tavix : Chat  23:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The only significant result from a Google search of 'Malaysia Serbia' is Malaysia's ambassador to Serbia being expelled from the country after Malaysia recognised Kosovo's independence. This isn't the kind of in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:N as it only concerns a single incident, and the incident would be better placed in Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or a similar article as several other ambassadors were also expelled. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - If the only thing that can be found is the Malaysian ambassador was expelled due to them recognising Kosovo's independence, then it's hardly notable. When added to the severing of ties between the two countries in 1992 (and then re-established in 2003), and the lack of a Serbian embassy in Malaysia, this is a non notable relations. Like a lot of the rest of similar articles. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  13:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability easily established The usual way. Why a handful of editors think bilateral relations should be held to a much higher standard of inclusion than any other set of articles has not been articulated, that I've seen.  - hopefully this is enough to dispel the charade that this relation is "non-notable" - I can dig up many more sources if the show must go on, however. Wily D  14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As their only interaction appear to have been over Kosovo, why not just add another footnote in the relevant place at International recognition of Kosovo? - Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to answer a question that rests upon false assumptions. Please review the sources I cited before deciding what they contain. Wily D  16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did review them. If there's anything more to add, add it to the article, and we'll take things from there. - Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be unaware, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. Some articles are still in development (the general thinking is that all articles are still in development, though some are farther along than others).  The usual practice is to keep and work on articles that meet the standards of WP:N, which this transparently does.  Why should we treat this articles as a highly unusual case, as you're asking us to do? Wily D  18:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 15:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond the existence of relations (non-notable) and the Kosovo bit (covered, or able to be covered, elsewhere), there's nothing of substance to the relationship. We keep stubs with expansion potential, but delete them when that is out of the question, as in this case. - Biruitorul Talk 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is already a start, not a stub, class article, and could certainly be expanded a fair bit more. It wasn't hard to locate a few nice sources with only a modicum of searching - someone devoted could push much farther. Wily D  01:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A bunch of sources covering only a single incident is basically a sign that there's only been a single incident between the countries, so WP:NOT applies. As the article is an uncited paragraph its a stub BTW. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of these statements are flatly false. It doesn't make a good argument to simply misrepresent the situation. Wily D  12:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. -- BlueSquadron Raven  23:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the facts that have surfaced during this discussion. Hilary T (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically? -- BlueSquadron Raven  18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones provided by WilyD which show that the topic passes WP:N. Hilary T (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This info can be better organized into other articles, and WilyD's snide responses don't really change the fact that his sources better belong in International recognition of Kosovo, as that is the logical place to find that info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No real sources on this topic. Yilloslime T C  23:53, 6 April 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.