Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Republic–Iceland relations (2nd nomination)

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 keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic–Iceland relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

thus bilateral relationshipn is hardly in-depth. Neither country has resident ambassadors. No significant trade, migration or cultural or military interaction. This article should not be about Czechoslovak - Iceland relations either, for example the 1963 incident, which is barrel scraping for notable incidents. 3 leader visits in almost 20 years if relations says something about this relationship. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sourcing showing to sustain an article on this topic. I realize the nominator hates these X-Y Relations pieces with a passion, but I believe there is an ongoing consensus to keep if there are multiple sources present. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are no sources showing significant trade, migration or cultural or military interaction. The agreements presented are run of the mill. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the "foreign relations of..." articles (Foreign relations of Iceland is probably better because the country is older, and some non-trivial information on both ČR-Iceland and ČSR-Iceland might be merged in there). The article in its current state is mostly trivial information and mostly off-topic; Czechoslovak-Icelandic and Czech-Icelandic relations should NOT be regarded as the same topic. There don't seem to be any sources cited whose primary focus is "Czech Republic-Iceland relations" so this imo falls under WP:SYN. Might become a notable topic in the future, so I'm fine with preserving the page history in a redirect. - filelake shoe 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. -- 202.124.73.101 (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.73.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JUSTAVOTE doesn't apply to the above; "Keep per [insert above editor's name]'s rationale" is perfectly legitimate. JUSTAVOTE is when you say "Keep" with no comment, not when you say "Keep per what someone else said." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. The baseless assertion that the references provided are "run of the mill" has no weight in deletion discussions. The references clearly show that these two countries have a relationship and it is suitable to have a Wikipedia page to reflect this. While Czech Republic's relations with Iceland is not the same as Czechoslovakia's, the historical context is certainly relevant to the contemporary situation. Cloudz 679 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Doesn't WP:ROUTINE apply here? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are mainly independent of the subject. Run of the mill is defined there as "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out". For me this does not apply here. Cloudz 679 15:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. It's plenty good now, and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Bearian, now that it's so much improved, Keep. It was always notable, but is now plenty verifiable too. Note: my previous comments were not !votes, but neutral while forming an opinion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2012 (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.