Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia – New Zealand 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 delete. Flowerparty^☀ 01:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia – New Zealand relations

another completely random combination. non resident embassies. the only relations seem sporting ones [1] . the bilateral treaties were all created before 1976 with former Yugoslavia [2], so neither country can't be bothered actually creating new ones since Croatia become independent. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random and useless combo. Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of Croatia, which holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why not Foreign relations of New Zealand? LibStar (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I have asked before in these situations. It shouldn't direct anywhere. If someone is looking for information about a particular country's extremely un-remarkable relations with another then it is not too much to ask for them to look at an article about one or both of their general relations. The creator of all these articles certainly stumbled on the perfect way to waste thousands of man-hours of other people's time. Drawn Some (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects cost nothing - may as well. Perhaps someone is interested. To your second point, the original stubs and the subsequent AfD nominations are certainly taking a lot of time to resolve. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But who would type in "Croatia - New Zealand relations" as a search term, with the dash and spaces and all? Drawn Some (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would. They would type something like "Croatia New Zealand", and would see that the first result looked like what they they were after. Try doing a search on "cyprus bulgaria" (no quotes) to see the effect. I think it is user-friendly. No big deal though. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh sorry I forgot that part. Drawn Some (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And no need for 8000 redirects either -- I doubt anyone actually types in this article name. Ever. Collect (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redirect is needed for the meager information here. No notability of the topic asserted anywhere. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious question is what the decision would be if someone boldly recreated the article as a redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst appropriate in some cases, I don't think a redirect is warranted here. there is no real information of note, no embassies, no actual treaties created between Croatia and NZ. besides the Croatian foreign ministry lists all their treaties neatly in English. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All content in this article is already also at Foreign_relations_of_Croatia, which the more appropriate place for it. Also, there don't appear to be any reliable, third-party sources that discuss the topic of their bilateral relations, so this topic fails WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does the political relationship between every single country in the world with every other country in the world require an article?Knobbly (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not helpful to have 40,000 pointless articles saying that country X has relations with country Y. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no general statement on articles of this format. This one article lacks any indication that this relation is notable enough for a stand-alone article; other articles may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but this one is clearly not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 26 May 2009 (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.