Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Peru 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Peru relations

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. google news search doesn't show much [1] LibStar (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there really isn't anything here to demonstrate notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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
Strong keep AFDs are not the place for WP:CLEANUP. Notability can be established if editors would not ignore WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Ikip (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied WP:BEFORE with a google news search. no significant third party coverage found as required by WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced stub for which i can find no reliable sources that rise above the extremely trivial that discuss this relationship. That the words "cyprus" and "peru" might cohabit a google search or two is a far, far different thing than coverage of the supposed bilateral relationship itself. No sources means no verifiability and no notability. So delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But at least we do not have "trilateral relations" pages yet. And the non-notability of this and a slew of other similar pages is amazing. Consider this as posted in all the worst offenders - I am not about to cut-and-paste it. Collect (talk) 18:10, 6 May 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.