Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Islands–Turkey relations (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands–Turkey relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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 WP:GNG. There is hardly anything to these relations: no trade, agreements or embassies. The 2 high level visits were part of multilateral forums. The MV Maersk Tigris incident is covered in its own article. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't seem to me that the article fails WP:GNG. Also, the details about MV Maersk Tigris incident is a minuscule amount of content in that article. Jothefiredragon (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)̃[reply]
Comment parts of the article has been edited since listing this AfD removing text based on fake references. What's left is not much relations. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the absence of embassies, high level diplomats, or treaties indicates that this is not notable; the lack of significant coverage is the nail in the coffin. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2024 (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.