Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libya–Vanuatu 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 Nominator withdraws nomination On consideration of the evidence provided. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libya–Vanuatu relations

another random combination. "Vanuatu condemned the bombing of Libya" is hardly a reason for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You have to be f'ing kidding me? Have a read of this source for crying out loud - it clearly demonstrates notability. In fact I placed it on the talk page Talk:Libya–Vanuatu_relations 3 days ago. Are the people nominating these articles actually looking for sources of information, or are they just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive? This is getting beyond a joke, and perhaps ~~bans~~ restrictions on certain editors (i.e. LibStar) nominating such articles should be given, because this one just proves there is too much disruption going on. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a ban is not assuming good faith. I have also supported the keeping of certain articles as well and have created some new bilateral relations articles so I'm not nominating most of them. each article passes through the AfD process. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we supposed to assume good faith with ridiculous nominations such as this? Did you even put Libya Vanuatu into a search engine before nominating? If you did, you would have gotten that source, in addition to [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] - they are all from the first 3 pages of search results of Google Web, Books and Scholar. And you are claiming not-notable? The proof is in the pudding, that you didn't do an ounce of research before bringing this to AfD, and it is disruptive. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes once in a while - can we not jump on each other like this? LibStar is doing a good job; assume good faith, be civil, and don't call for his head. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Libstar--Moloch09 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Libstar actually nominated this for deletion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremly strong keep - With this amount of refrences someone could easily make this into a GA or even FA with hard work. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:23, 27 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.