Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Iceland 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. Cirt (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgia–Iceland relations

Georgia–Iceland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

another random combination of countries with no evidence of any diplomatic ties. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete 17 years and two non-resident ambassadors do not make for notable relations between countries on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - random, no hint of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete but (sigh!) it's a waste of time - group AfDs always get derailed, and these "X-Y relations are relations between X and Y" articles get created faster than they can be AfD'd individually. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete since I could not find any evidence of this relationship being meaningful or notable. JohnCD, I understand your despair, but you're not entirely correct, I think: we're dealing with a mess left by a now-banned editor, and a whole bunch of people on both sides--some trying to delete a lot of them, some trying save a lot (or some) of them. But I don't think they're being churned out as we speak, are they? And I'm sure there's a couple of admins with "CSD#4" engraved on their knives. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Except for a trickle, the big floods have indeed stopped; right now we're just going through a very big cleanup operation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Is Hilary blocked now? I saw the discussion on the talk page, but did not see a block notice. A block would improve the level of discourse a little bit--I don't care that much for sarcasm. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Only temporarily, though I bet that block log will grow with time. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This particular one as unlikely to have any sources to show notability. We have to go one at a time, because some of those nominating articles in this series do not in general check for sources and have nominated some obviously keepable (and kept) articles along with the others, in their indiscriminate actions. This particular nomination, however, seems perfectly appropriate. The article should not have been created. DGG (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources establish this as a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete sheesh. JJL (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, there is a discussion about a general policy on such articles. --Tone 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Very weak delete - both are members of Council of Europe, and have full embassies, but not much else in common. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 19 April 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.