Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukraine–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.  MBisanz  talk 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine–Vietnam relations

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

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N.  tempo di valse  [☎]  13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - sure, they've got some trade, and the usual "deal to co-operate in trade, technology", but nothing out of the ordinary or particularly notable emerges about this relationship in any source. - Biruitorul Talk 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 17:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 17:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is nothing unusual or particularly notable about this relationship. Including this kind of thing would make for a boring encylopedia. All In Order (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — All In Order (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just another Hilary T sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Cruft & clutter. Dahn (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. All articles of the type "X-Y country relations" are notable. They might be not properly sourced, but this is not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While you're free to believe all such relations are notable, precedent disagrees with you. See for instance Articles for deletion/Australia–Montenegro relations, Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Chile relations, Articles for deletion/Jamaica–Serbia relations, Articles for deletion/Malta-Americas relations, Articles for deletion/France–Nauru relations, Articles for deletion/Ireland–Singapore relations, Articles for deletion/Chile-Luxembourg relations, Articles for deletion/Holy See–Yemen relations. Consensus is that sources are needed to write a coherent article on the subject, and that the mere existence of relations is insufficient. - Biruitorul Talk 03:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Kind of boring, but notable as per refs. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete who cares if someone finds a subject boring? I'm personally bored by 90% of the articles on wikipedia that I believe deserve inclusion (Formula One defines boring for me. But notable? Absolutely). The problem with this article is that, as a topic, it's a bilateral relationship of no demonstrable notability via reliable sources that discuss this relationship per se -- news articles in which the words ukraine and vietnam appear are not be confused with articles that discuss this rather quiescent bilateral relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If there is a "rather quiescent bilateral relationship", that implies there was once a less quiescent relationship. But in any case active trade relations are not trivial. DGG (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What? "quiescent" means simply to be inactive; untended. At any rate, it's my contention that this has always been inactive and untended.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG, my usual standards: significant trade, former alliance via USSR, great references, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian SSR hardly had a foreign policy to speak of, so we can't really say the two were allies (and in any case, Vietnam was not in the Warsaw Pact). As for trade, to the extent that's notable (which independent sources don't show), we have "economy of..." articles. - Biruitorul Talk 01:20, 30 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.