Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Croatia relations
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan–Croatia relations
- )
another random combination from the obsessive article creator. this indicates only minor bilateral agreements between the 2 nations. http://www.mvpei.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV//templates/_frt_bilateralni_odnosi_po_drzavama_en.asp?id=55 LibStar (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - relations exist, but not much more can be said. Delete for lack of sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul Talk 01:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Azerbaijan and Croatia have Russia in common, both being ex-cold-war states. This is a very sentimentally powerful connection, shared among many states, including Czech, Poland, Finland, most of Eastern Europe and most all of Caucasus and the Balkans. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source? And do recall ]
- Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Dialogue 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Dialogue 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Dialogue 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.