Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbia–Zambia 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,  Nakon  05:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbia–Zambia relations

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

another random country combination with no evidence of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There has to be something notable for an article... surely? --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep until there is a chance to properly look for sources. Some of these pairs have turned out to be notable. yes, they shouldn't have been created as stubs, but then they shouldn't have been nominated without searching.DGG (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the debate will remain open for the several days, but these have been created wtihout searching. This guy created [| more than 150] and  of these articles in two months before being ordered to cease and desist on February 27.  Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * doesn't appear to be any news coverage of a relationship LibStar (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as random bilateral pairing with no sources to show notability. - Biruitorul Talk 05:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this non-subject. What a waste of time. WillOakland (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete surely there is nothing in this article that can't be adequately covered in the respective "Foreign Relations of..." articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Makes no sense to chase after deletion of more or less non-controversial articles. Zambia ships a lot of copper, there's a potential connection between the two.  The future is open, why wouldn't these two countries have something to do with each other?  And, one must assume good faith on the part of the editors of the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Potential" shipments of copper? How about a source? - Biruitorul Talk 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. No sources, no notability demonstrated, delete. What's not assuming good faith there? - Biruitorul Talk 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking for sources for articles is not an assumption of bad faith. It's a requisite of an article on Wikipedia. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Accountable, I would point out that there is absolutely no requirement in Wikipedia that we must assume good faith on the part of the editors of any article. The "assume good faith" requirement applies to nominations and to the participants in a debate in the Articles for Deletion.  Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with you, or with Biruitorul or BlueSquadron, I operate under the assumption that all of us are making our arguments in good faith.  Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Random, non-notable pairing apparently created in the throes of obsessive-compulsive disorder. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ? What does writing "Kill it with fire!" in the revision history have to do with this? And similar comments in similar current deletion discussion revision histories?  Please explain.  It is inappropriate.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the first one to show a little humour in edit summaries, and I'm sure I won't be the last. Don't take things so seriously. It's not good for the disposition around here, I know. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:34, 16 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.