Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbia–Vietnam 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. Flowerparty ☀ 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbia–Vietnam relations

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

non resident embassies. all media coverage centres around Kosovo or comparing the Bosnian War to the Vietnam War. Serbian foreign ministry doesn't say much about actual bilateral relations. any info on Kosovo should be in International recognition of Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless random crap combo Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Must agree with Virgil Jr.'s well-considered and -stated opinon on this one. Fails notability in that there is not significant in-depth coverage of Serbia-Vietnam relations in reliable sources because they don't have much in the way of a relationsip in in reality. Drawn Some (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Random X-Y intersection. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Foreign relations of Serbia, which holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not Foreign relations of Vietnam? Drawn Some (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not both? Cosmomancer (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because redirects can't go to two articles. Drawn Some (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Change it to a disambig page then?  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or redirect this one to Foreign relations of Serbia and make another redirect Vietnam–Serbia relations to Foreign relations of Vietnam, which holds the same few scraps of information. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Aymatth's idea. Acebulf (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This suggestion would require too many redirects.Knobbly (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The number of potential redirects boggles the mind. Just have people realize they only need to know one country to find out who it has relations with. Or doesn't. Collect (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After working through a number of the "Foreign relations of" lists, my estimate is about 2,000 redirects, or 4,000 if we put in two for each country pair - my preference. There are about 200 countries, which would suggest 40,000 redirects if every possible combination were included (still not a large number). But most countries only have relations even at the trivial level of these stubs with four or five other countries, some less (think Togo, Tokelau, Tonga etc.) And many of the pairs (e.g. the 200 odd United States relations articles) will not need redirects. The cost is minute. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Randomly paired countries with no external sources covering the topic as a whole. No notability here. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect It would take much less in the way of resources to make suitable redirects than to argue the matter. If there's a problem doing it as redirects because of needingt wo, a device can be found, similar to a disam p. There's always a workaround. Such technicalities should not impair improving the encyclopedia.  DGG (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the redirect Vietnam–Serbia relations be included in this AfD? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - International recognition of Kosovo tells us about that issue, and unless something notable can be gleaned about relations between Communist Yugoslavia and North Vietnam (doubtful, since the latter was a Soviet client), we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship in any depth at all. It's as if, there is no relationship to speak of except the highly trivial "The deputy ministers for agriculture once met and shook hands." I have no opposition to recreation as a redirect after deletion.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Why does the political relationship between every single country in the world with every other country in the world require an article? Enough already!Knobbly (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless articles and redirects detract from the encyclopedia. No reason has been given why this topic has any substance, whereas the other 40,000 relations between each pair of the 203 countries does not. Let me spell that out: If this becomes an article or a redirect, there are more than 40,000 that should similarly follow. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 26 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.