Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Malaysia 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Malaysia relations

can easily be covered in Foreign relations of Kosovo. no evidence of any other relationship. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 14:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. —Mm40 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This can be covered in Foreign relations of Kosovo unless there is some further relationship. If need be, this can be created again at a future point. Mm40 (talk) 14:58, 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 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the fact of recognition (the only notable facet of the "relationship") is already covered at International recognition of Kosovo. By the way, User:Turkish Flame creates a "Kosovo-X relations" article every time some country grants recognition, which should be stopped and reversed. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think Cool3 has done some good work, although a) one wonders whether the material is more than trivial and might not be better covered elsewhere (and as usual, the lack of sources studying the relationship as such is a downside); b) I hope some of Turkish Flame's more random stuff (like Kosovo–Luxembourg relations) can still be redirected/deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Randomly created, yes--but even a broken watch is right twice a day. BTW, I agree with you on point b. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I'll also agree with point B. In my opinion, though, many of these nominated for deletion as indiscriminately as they are created. We would all benefit from a little more WP:BEFORE and perhaps some firmer guidelines on notability of bilateral relations. Cool3 (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more to the relationship than just recognition. Malaysia was also (in 2000) the first Asian country to establish a liaison office in Kosovo. Since recognizing Kosovo's independence, Malaysia has also assisted Kosovo in several areas. I'm working on getting all of this into the article, but I think that even as is at the moment, the relationship is clearly notable. Cool3 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Cool3, you are the man/woman and I'm really impressed with what you've done. After this vast improvement, I believe notability has been established. This goes to show that sometimes the most unexpected pairings turn out to be meaningful. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the test is whether there is sufficient reliably sourced material to write a worthwhile page. As above, more depth is needed but, meanwhile, the page is developing well. Smile a While (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 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 14:06, 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. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 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.