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) CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

San Marino–United States relations

San Marino–United States 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 really isn't anything to these relations except diplomatic recognition. Even the USA with the most number of foreign ambassadors does not post a resident ambassador to San Marino LibStar ( talk) 00:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Considering the outcome of the last AfD (a very lightly-traffic'd no consensus seemingly caused by an almost rationale-free !vote of keep), I'd have to agree with the nomination here. GNG's not met, and the NYTimes article really isn't so much about the history of relations between the states so much as being one of those "bet you didn't know this about history" kind of articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep given the long time basis of the relationship (over 100 years) and the multiple sources covering said relationship.-- TM 13:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

there are 3 sources in the article. discounting the 1 primary source, 2 sources is hardly significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 14:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

As you well know, notability is not about the sources showing in an article (AfD is not for cleanup or article improvement), but rather about the universal set of articles out there in the world — which are sufficient for an easy pass of GNG if one takes the time to look. Carrite ( talk) 14:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep but improve Could mention the Battle of San Marino during WW2, there was a big question as to whether the Allies were at war with San Marino during this time because San Marino had alligned its policies with Fascist Italy, the US state department said they wern't at war but still fought italian units on Sanmaranise soil. See here [1] . AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 15:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Although GNG seems very weak I do think there is room to improve. Govvy ( talk) 17:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - One of an endless series of challenges of "X-Y Relations" articles by this nominator. Usually X is a VERY SMALL country and Y is a PRETTY SMALL country in another geographical region, in which GNG passage is difficult to assert. Not so here. Passes GNG. Carrite ( talk) 13:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

HERE are multiple documents in the volume FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES: DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1944, EUROPE, VOLUME IV (US Government Printing Office). Carrite ( talk) 13:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

THIS is the US State Department's official website on the history of relations with San Marino. Carrite ( talk) 13:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

AND coverage from the San Marinian side on an anti-terrorism agreement signed with the US government. Okay. We have all wasted enough time here. This is the second challenge of the same article by the same nominator. Trout to you, sir. And remember: Notability is not temporary. Carrite ( talk) 13:57, 1 November 2017 (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.