- 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. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 05:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Latvia–Malaysia relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. There does not seem anything to this relationship except one meeting of foreign ministers. There is a lot of want to co operate more and more tourism statements but no evidence of actual trade, tourism or agreements. Most of the sources supplied are the foreign ministry website which can be considered a primary source. LibStar ( talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Can't see how it fails WP:GNG. To keep the page, GNG mentions the subject needs to be notable, not whether in real life any steps have been taken on the subject or not. The page definitely needs expansion. Rafaelgriffin ( talk) 16:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)— Rafaelgriffin ( talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Mr RD ( talk • contribs).
- most of the sources are primary. There is a lack of third party sources. LibStar ( talk) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- keep per north Pass a Method talk 18:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - I hate these "A Relations With B" articles. I hate the challenges of these articles. So it goes... Sufficient sources showing in the piece to pass GNG. Carrite ( talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep , obvious WP:GNG. That a bilateral relationship is notable depends on sources coverage, not on arbitrary standards on the amount of such relationships. -- cyclopia speak! 00:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- and most of the sources are primary. LibStar ( talk) 01:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment To those arguing WP:GNG is met. besides Latvian government primary sources, there are only 3 third party sources provided. the Argophilia source actually lifts its content direct from the other new straits times source. that leaves us 2 third party sources. A search of Malaysia's largest English newspaper, New Straits Times, only yields the one article about wooing tourists [1]. other than that, New Straits Times talks about supermarket collapses in Latvia and Latvia entering the euro zone. LibStar ( talk) 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've also searched Latvia's biggest newspaper and it seems to cover mainly sporting results in Malaysia [2]. LibStar ( talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep As there also an articles with less reference or no reference → ( 1, 2). I wonder why these articles never been nominated for deletion. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- you have provided no reason why this article is notable. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Per @ Rafaelgriffin. The article just needs a rewrite. Pikolas ( talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - the consensus from past AfDs is to keep bilateral articles with at least a few good sources about significant trade between two countries. Bearian ( talk) 22:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- there is no significant trade and no sources to establish it. LibStar ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2014 (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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 05:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Latvia–Malaysia relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. There does not seem anything to this relationship except one meeting of foreign ministers. There is a lot of want to co operate more and more tourism statements but no evidence of actual trade, tourism or agreements. Most of the sources supplied are the foreign ministry website which can be considered a primary source. LibStar ( talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Can't see how it fails WP:GNG. To keep the page, GNG mentions the subject needs to be notable, not whether in real life any steps have been taken on the subject or not. The page definitely needs expansion. Rafaelgriffin ( talk) 16:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)— Rafaelgriffin ( talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Mr RD ( talk • contribs).
- most of the sources are primary. There is a lack of third party sources. LibStar ( talk) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- keep per north Pass a Method talk 18:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - I hate these "A Relations With B" articles. I hate the challenges of these articles. So it goes... Sufficient sources showing in the piece to pass GNG. Carrite ( talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep , obvious WP:GNG. That a bilateral relationship is notable depends on sources coverage, not on arbitrary standards on the amount of such relationships. -- cyclopia speak! 00:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- and most of the sources are primary. LibStar ( talk) 01:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment To those arguing WP:GNG is met. besides Latvian government primary sources, there are only 3 third party sources provided. the Argophilia source actually lifts its content direct from the other new straits times source. that leaves us 2 third party sources. A search of Malaysia's largest English newspaper, New Straits Times, only yields the one article about wooing tourists [1]. other than that, New Straits Times talks about supermarket collapses in Latvia and Latvia entering the euro zone. LibStar ( talk) 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've also searched Latvia's biggest newspaper and it seems to cover mainly sporting results in Malaysia [2]. LibStar ( talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep As there also an articles with less reference or no reference → ( 1, 2). I wonder why these articles never been nominated for deletion. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- you have provided no reason why this article is notable. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Per @ Rafaelgriffin. The article just needs a rewrite. Pikolas ( talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - the consensus from past AfDs is to keep bilateral articles with at least a few good sources about significant trade between two countries. Bearian ( talk) 22:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- there is no significant trade and no sources to establish it. LibStar ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2014 (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.