Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–United Kingdom 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 keep. It's a blizzard in here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–United Kingdom relations

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

This is not required and is unlikely to be read Calu2000 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is one of many bilateral "relationship" articles; e.g. Iran–United Kingdom relations, France–United Kingdom relations, Germany–United Kingdom relations, and Japan–Philippines relations.
SBaker43 (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is an invalid criteria for deletion that is tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly this is a valid topic with non-trivial coverage. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Requirement for an article of this kind is mandated by notability. The relationship between two sovereign, enduring nations is likely to be covered in numerous reliable sources. As to whether the article is likely to be read? Well, I couldn't say. But obscurity and unpopularity are not reasons for deletion, when things can be properly sourced. --Several Pending (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The exclude/include line seems to be someplace between the Marshall Islands and the Philippine Islands for bilateral international relations articles... Carrite (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain a little more what this means. What is the line? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exclude/include line is WP:N --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No argument for deletion, article is already sourced. Also keep as per solid arguments by RJH and Several Pending. Unscintillating (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable subject, standard topic, not valid deletion rationale forwarded, .... KTC (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Just because it may seem obscure to you doesn't mean that people won't find it useful. There are several articles on Wikipedia about relatively obscure topics (like Japanese singers or African conflicts that rarely get Western coverage), but surely such article may be useful for someone. As for the topic itself, the UK is one of the Philippines' major trading partners, and their bilateral relations get relatively good coverage over here. Surely notability has been established here. I suggest trouting the nominator for this invalid nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – The topic is notable, and prior to nominating articles for deletion from the encyclopedia, the nominator should consider following the suggestions for source searching at WP:BEFORE in the future.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep No trouts for this relatively new nominator, but I hope he'll review notability criteria before future nominations. We all have our bad days. I'm not sure in what sense any topic is "required" on Wikipedia, and if "unlikely to be read" were a valid argument for deletion (putting aside its extreme objectivity), we'd jettison a massive amount of special-interest articles. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable, and while the article needs word, no reason to delete.--KarlB (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable. Nominator probably just doesn't like it. Xeltran (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep even as someone that as found many low notability bilaterals, enduring historical relations and military interaction makes this notable. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the consensus is already quite clear, I recommend that we close this discussion as soon as possible. It's quite cold here already. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:46, 27 June 2012 (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.