Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourg–Romania 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. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg–Romania relations

lack of significant coverage of actual bilateral relations [1], 1st article does mention a foreign minister visit but not enough for an article. also Romanian ministers have attended EU meetings in Luxembourg but that in itself was for the EU and not Luxembourg-Romania relations. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep There;s not much, but reviewing your google search you provided, I am inclined to say there is marginally enough coverage to bump this one over the notability Mendoza line. Plus, that both nations are members of the EU and other international organizations with relatively small numbers of members (i.e. much smaller than say the UN), plus that Romania has a full embassy in Luxembourg itself, leads me to believe that these countries may have real bilateral relations, and not just imagined relations cuz they both are members of the UN or some such. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - independent sources actually about the relationship, as opposed to a visit of the sort that happens routinely and is never usually noticed here, are lacking. That relations exist is not in doubt, but their significance is not attested to by anything substantive. And someone wishing to check on joint international organisation membership can easily look at EU members, NATO members, etc.
I did search on this in Romanian, and came up empty. The Foreign Ministry does have a page on relations, but a) this is not independent of the subject and b) what is in there is dreadfully dull - endless rounds of visits, reams of trade figures (trade that is, I might add, quite minor), civil transport agreements - that sort of thing. The embassy itself has a site, but that's little more illuminating. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient notability by far -- place in single country articles at best. Permutations and combinations of country names do not make for a good subset of WP articles. Collect (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am hesitant to say delete when one country has an embassy in the other but Luxembourg doesn't bother to to have an embassy in Romania despite their common membership in several important international organizations and that speaks volumes. I don't see significant in-depth coverage of relations between these countries as a topic which is required for notability. If they have notable trade treaties or transport agreements then articles should be created on those notable topics. Notability for the whole isn't inherited from notability for a part. Drawn Some (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This random pairing of nations shows no notability beyond the pedestrian functions of govt. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are reports mentioning the two countries in connection with football and trade. However, I could not find anything notable, and there appears no reason to believe the article will ever hold more than a few unconnected facts. The correct way to approach this would be to develop information in the article for each country. If there is ever sufficient information to link these two countries, a new "relations" artice can be created then, but this stub is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:07, 5 July 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.