The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
article is a blatant copy of [1], and it really isn't a lot of relations, no significant cultural, diplomatic or economic relations. the only coverage I could find is multilateral [2]. Those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of indepth coverage of relations not vague arguments. LibStar ( talk) 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
"number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." unless something is inherently notable, notability is demonstrated by the depth of coverage which includes indepth articles but also contained in multiple sources. a bilateral relations article hinging on 3 sources is lower on the notability rung. LibStar ( talk) 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
article is a blatant copy of [1], and it really isn't a lot of relations, no significant cultural, diplomatic or economic relations. the only coverage I could find is multilateral [2]. Those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of indepth coverage of relations not vague arguments. LibStar ( talk) 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
"number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." unless something is inherently notable, notability is demonstrated by the depth of coverage which includes indepth articles but also contained in multiple sources. a bilateral relations article hinging on 3 sources is lower on the notability rung. LibStar ( talk) 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply