Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania – Saudi Arabia 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Romania – Saudi Arabia relations

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

Random combination; no assertion or evidence of notability; fails WP:N. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment has the nom searched? DGG (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In English and Romanian; not in Arabic. - Biruitorul Talk 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - usual stuff, not an unusual case, so apply WP:N. +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  and so forth. Wily D  17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They've visited each other, and there's some Saudi oil money floating around Romania (hardly surprising). Now find multiple sources discussing "Romania – Saudi Arabia relations", not what you think might constitute these, else the "in depth" requirement of WP:GNG is not met. - Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. Foreign relations of the 203 sovereign countries are best discussed in the article about the country, or a standalone article if a major country, rather than in 20,000 such binary stubs. A link to the country's foreign ministry website will provide more up-to-date info than a robostub created and neglected. Edison (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs. (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WikiProject International relations has some well thought out advice (see WikiProject International relations) for when bilateral relations between two nations are notable. This article does not even assert to meet any of them. Locke9k (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The references Wily found clearly demonstrate notability. I added content from them to the article - no longer a stub. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sources found and content added. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability seems to be established. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources easily meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per 2 x embassy and sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep current article has enough sources. but would note that some could pass as WP:NOT. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 6 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.