Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo – Panama 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 no consensus. One (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo – Panama relations

Kosovo – Panama relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

any useful information should be in Foreign relations of Kosovo. no evidence of notable relations otherwise. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Then put it there. You don't need an AFD to merge material. That's what WP:MRFD is for. (It's even against policy to move text and delete the originating page - WP:MAD)- Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - recognition, the only significant feature of this relationship, is already noted at International recognition of Kosovo. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is a stub and will be improved in the near future. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Kosovo relations, we can improve the article and save it from deleting. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Kosovo relations is a pretty poor argument as that article is still unreferenced and unsourced, still does nothing to assert notability, and was closed not as keep, but as no consensus. You have a week to make anything out of this one, and it should be better than that. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There must be a simple article that we can build upon as relations deepen. --alchaemia (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, which is why there isn't much in the article at the moment. Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'Keep Panama is a legitimate county which recognises and has diplomatic relations with the relations with the Republic of Kosovo. So Keep, this article is a stub. No need for deletion. Ijanderson (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A great deal of deleted articles of this type has already shown that the mere existence of relations between two "legitimate" countries does not in and of itself satisfy notability. There needs to be more to it than that. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The above comment by User:Ijanderson977 was solicited by User:Turkish Flame as shown here. [1] --BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that relevant? Ijanderson wasn't necessarily going to agree with Turkish Flame. Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson977, are you familiar with the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG? - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Delete - Recognition is not notability, in fact the relations do not even exist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A case of a mere directory listing for a non-notable subject. See WP:NOT and WP:N. Edison (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep - international relations are inherently notable, even if there isn't much to say in this case. Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Jtrainor (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

not inherently notable, at least 40 of these X-Y articles have been deleted in recent weeks. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete since no reliable sources are in this article that discuss this relationship and i can find none on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

cmt just noting that a little canvassing has been going on here. i.e. of alchemia [2] ijanderson1977 [3] and a few others who haven't (so far) chimed in here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete- All precedents have shown us that these types of articles are not notable enough to keep them. In fact, many of Kosovo-X articles have been deleted so far. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The precedent has generally been that articles which meet WP:N, such as this one, are kept or no consensus'd. WilyD 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you're grasping at straws. One of the countries has only existed for a year. There is no argument for "ongoing coverage" here, especially as the one reference in the article is from four months ago and is basically only the start of relations. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - meets WP:N, no reason to not treat this as a regular article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 May 2009

• • Actually, the lack of significant coverage means it fails WP:N; plus, the one salient fact, that of recognition, is already documented at International recognition of Kosovo. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOTDIR among others. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Keep per multiple sources, [4], [5], [6], [7]. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There are lots of other articles regarding the national relationships between two or more countries. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:26, 10 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.