Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia–San Marino relations

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) —Theo polisme 16:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–San Marino relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notabily for WP:FOR#Bilateral relations Stigni (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion for procedural reasons. WikiProject-specific guidelines cannot serve as a basis for determining notability (only the WP:N criteria can) and, subsequently, for deletion. (But if objections based on WP:N are brought to light, I'll consider striking my oppose out).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 18:41 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Although the WikiJargon link WP:FOR#Bilateral relations looks impressive at a glance, it is nothing more than a suggestion for members of a WikiProject — not a notability guideline approved by the community. As such, there are no grounds for deletion presented by the nominator in this nomination. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly replaced phrasing at the workgroup so that the link cited by the nominator now reads "Suggested standards." Hopefully this will avert future confusion along these lines... Carrite (talk)

For this article there is the same argument of the Belize-Russia relations, I forget to post also here: it is notable for WP:GNG because article from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the two country doesn't respect the criteria: "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"; and such article could be considered as primary sources ("written by people who are directly involved"). Stigni (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relations between two european states that engage in a listed number of international organisations is notable. Outback the koala (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE the link to this Afd from the page was broken; editors trying to comment here were unable to do so because of the broken link. I have repaired it now, hopefully more time is given to this Afd to allow for a more complete discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I can't imagine there is much more to add and source. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article doesn't suggest there's much notable about this relationship. In fact, it suggests the opposite: neither country has an ambassador stationed in the other country. (San Marino's ambassador to Russia is based in Vienna, Austria -- more than 1,000 miles from Moscow, and in a country which not only doesn't border Russia, it doesn't even border any country that does border Russia.) On the other hand, San Marino was once the only country on the west side of the iron curtain with a Communist Party in government, so maybe there is more to write about with regard to San Marino's relationship with the Soviet Union. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wikiprojects do not make these determinations. The article is weak, but keep-able. It adds to wikipedia in a positive, albeit a weak, manner. Perhaps it can be improved. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sue Rangell and Carrite. Go Phightins! 03:07, 16 November 2012 (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.