Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Latvia 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Latvia relations

another random combination. all coverage seems to be a multilateral not bilateral context [1] not even sure if their football sides have even played each other (which usually comes up in these searches). LibStar (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete State visits make the news but don't do much to support a notability claim to relations between countries compare to any other random two. No coverage of the article topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not show a depth of coverage in reliable sources to indicate that it meets inclusion criteria spelled out in WP:N. No statement on the general class of these articles, but this one article does not rate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better. It already contains state visits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as shown in many deleted bilateral articles, state visits alone do not make for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is important, the fact that "Iceland was the first country to recognise the independence of Latvia in August 1991" should be mentioned in Latvia. There is no prospect of any other useful content. There are more than 40,000 pairs of countries, and leaders from X often visit Y for lots of non-notable reasons. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If 40,000 articles are needed, so be it. This is highly useful for those interested in diplomacy - Vartanza (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above comment is not valid per WP:ITSUSEFUL and makes no attempt to say how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no reliable sources treat this supposed relationship in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added information about countries' bilateral agreement with relation to Tourism and Iceland's support of Latvia's entrance to NATO. A developing relationship but an established one. Meets notability requirements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 40,000 pairs would be ridiculous, but 200 countries means under 20,000 articles (remember to divide by two as we don't need both an Iceland-Latvia article as well as a Latvia-Iceland one). Above and beyond any presumption of inherent notability for such articles, the sources now present in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are only 3 references, 2 of which are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources adress these relation at all. State visits are not relations. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 31 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.