Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand–Sweden 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand–Sweden relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. could not significant coverage of actual relations. the fact they closed their respective embassies says something about the importance of the relationship. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that they had embassies says a fair bit. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous existence of embassies does not grant automatic notability. You have failed to establish how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, as there is no third-party coverage to speak of about the relations specifically, all I could find was mention of the closing of the embassies as well as, which probably is a non-independent source(?). — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 09:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Has now been expanded substantially, so I'm retracting my Delete vote and switching it to Keep, as notability has been sufficiently shown. —  crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 14:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is between two countries, it is notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * that is not a valid reason for keeping . Many bilateral Articles have been deleted therefore they have no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The coverage seems mostly about the downgrading of the relationship, yet ironically Wikipedia rules make that encyclopedic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep two OECD countries and even the closing of embassies got coverage. I've contributed to similar articles on other countries and found that it's not simple to Google the relationship and get the right info. I would leave it with a banner asking for more help. VanEman (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * being 2 OECD countries doesn't give a free pass to notability . Referring to other articles is just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true, but the governments of OECD member countries tend to have a bit to do with each other through the organisation and are the subject of regular and good quality comparative studies on a wide range of topics so it does help meet WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as it's been expanded by Nick-D into a much more useful article.- gadfium 01:31, 9 April 2016 (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.