The result was keep. â Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
whilst these 2 countries have resident embassies, their relationship is not widely covered and mainly limited in a multilateral sense with other countries [1] Swiss govt doesn't say much either [2] LibStar ( talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
LibStar ( talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
the same thing could be asked of any article on any topic in the history of Wikipedia that has been deleted not just bilateral relations, you are welcome to request a deletion review, if you disagree. mind you, you would think other (not all) editors would show proof of searching themselves if they supported delete. LibStar ( talk) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.
The result was keep. â Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
whilst these 2 countries have resident embassies, their relationship is not widely covered and mainly limited in a multilateral sense with other countries [1] Swiss govt doesn't say much either [2] LibStar ( talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
LibStar ( talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
the same thing could be asked of any article on any topic in the history of Wikipedia that has been deleted not just bilateral relations, you are welcome to request a deletion review, if you disagree. mind you, you would think other (not all) editors would show proof of searching themselves if they supported delete. LibStar ( talk) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.