| Revision as of 02:08, 5 May 2009 editPetri Krohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,094 edits + Philippines–Romania: Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:32, 5 May 2009 edit undoBiruitorul (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers148,351 edits +Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| {{User:Ikip/99|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion}} | {{User:Ikip/99|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion}} | ||
| * '''Keep''' - 2 x embassy. + '''Keep''' ''Philippines–Romania'': 2 x embassy. -- ] (]) 02:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' - 2 x embassy. + '''Keep''' ''Philippines–Romania'': 2 x embassy. -- ] (]) 02:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| **I'm sorry, but this is starting to seem like disruption. The presence of the embassies is documented in the lists of embassies! If that's all we have, why duplicate the content with yet more meaningless stubs, when it's already present? - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:32, 5 May 2009
Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations
- Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
None of these three pairings has much notability to it. Trade is limited. Significant coverage of the topics is entirely lacking. Member State of the European Union already tells us Romania and Malta are in the EU; Diplomatic missions of Romania (and of the others) already tell us about any embassies. Nothing indicates Romania's position on the Bosnia issue is any different from the common positions of the EUPM or the PIC. And so on. Biruitorul 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Malta–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Philippines–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete - I've seen a whole lot of random combinations for foreign relations at AfD lately... Delete, as per whatever my reasoning in the rest of them was (probably something to the effect of not notable)--Unionhawk 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As is the norm with these articles there is no substance, no references and no sources. Ergo, no notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - There seems to be a large amount of sources for Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania however not so much the other two. Here are some sources for Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations, BBC article on Military cooperation plan, a article on military mission, article on Bosnia EU bid there are more that I will add in a few minutes, just finding the best ones of many to post. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bosnia-Romania on the basis of the sources found, as would be expected for two countries in the same region. Nominating three such diffferent geographic situations together indicates indiscriminate nomination, the desire to get rid of poor articles without considering their possibilities. . DGG (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - no, my nomination was well-considered. It's telling that neither European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina nor EUFOR Althea mention Romania's (or any other country's) involvement in peacekeeping in Bosnia - surely we'd want that information there first? As for the other articles: bilateral defence cooperation, great, pretty meaningless (especially between a NATO army and a non-NATO "army"); and as for supporting the EU bid - everyone supports the Western Balkans joining the EU, nothing special about that; see Accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the European Union for more. Marcusmax, if you do manage to expand with more than trivia, let's at least consider merging into Foreign relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina - I doubt it'll be very long, and there's plenty of room there. - Biruitorul 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- At this point Biruitorul I am just throwing the sources out there, I kind of agree with you that alot of this seems trivial so I am currently undecided. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - no, my nomination was well-considered. It's telling that neither European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina nor EUFOR Althea mention Romania's (or any other country's) involvement in peacekeeping in Bosnia - surely we'd want that information there first? As for the other articles: bilateral defence cooperation, great, pretty meaningless (especially between a NATO army and a non-NATO "army"); and as for supporting the EU bid - everyone supports the Western Balkans joining the EU, nothing special about that; see Accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the European Union for more. Marcusmax, if you do manage to expand with more than trivia, let's at least consider merging into Foreign relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina - I doubt it'll be very long, and there's plenty of room there. - Biruitorul 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Other Sources - Sorry about the delay, but here are some other sources to go with what I already mentioned a article I believe on a Presidential visit, a trade agreement between the two and a believe a source detailing it . And one more source from the BBC although a better version is needed. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included on the and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Keep - 2 x embassy. + Keep Philippines–Romania: 2 x embassy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this is starting to seem like disruption. The presence of the embassies is documented in the lists of embassies! If that's all we have, why duplicate the content with yet more meaningless stubs, when it's already present? - Biruitorul 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)