Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985 Non-Aligned Foreign Ministers Conference

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 The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Non-Aligned Foreign Ministers Conference[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG and EVENT, WP:LASTING and WP:INDEPTH. Sources in the article are:

Primary :: 1. "NAM Declarations – Conference of NAM Foreign Ministers at Luanda- Letter from Angola (excerpts)". United Press International. 5 November 1985. Retrieved 8 April 2023.
Primary :: 2. ^ "RESOLUTION ON THE SEVENTH MINISTERIAL MEETING OF THE NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES" (PDF). African Union. 1985. Retrieved 8 April 2023.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 3. ^ Marcum, John A. (1986). "Angola: Twenty-Five Years of War". Current History. 85 (511): 193–231.
Yearbook, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: 4. ^ Yearbook of the United Nations: Volume 39. Department of Public Information. 1985. p. 371. ISBN 0-7923-0503-5.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 23:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the topic is not to be established exclusively by the sources used in this (in the best case scenario) START level article. There are numerous other online and non-digitalized sources covering this event both in English and in other languages so it seems to me that the event is clearly notable.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – pretty well attended conference with significant accomplishments. I think it already meets WP:HEY and there's still more reputable sources to be add, some with in-depth coverage. –Vipz (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep be added a couple of refs and overall I’m satisfied there’s enough coverage for this to pass, though I agree there is not much by way of in-depth coverage that I could turn up with an online search in English. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vipz. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 02:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sourcing now present in the article. There's further material from contemporaneous press reports, I found pieces from the UK Guardian and Associated Press. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2023 (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.