Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–United Arab Emirates 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–United Arab Emirates relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive creator, non resident ambassadors, 1 minor bilateral agreement. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a nice touch is the "since the 1970's" bit - "yeah, we've had relations for a little over three decades, not really sure how long though". Anyway, not a shred of notability is shown, so delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:58, 28 April 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.