Deletion of Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination)

Comment: Well sourced and useful article.   exists to prevent a special type of Original Research where sourced  are synthetic  combined to form novel conclusions.  There is nothing novel about suggesting these two nations have a relationship!  For human relationships,  folk might sometimes talk about the quality of the relationship itself in abstract or poetic terms. In contrast,  for bilateral relationships,  serious non trivial discussions invariably refer to concrete diplomatic events such as agreements and treaties
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:synth)

Comment: I don't see how the image adds much value to this article given that it features no |notable people or features. It is merely a bunch of people having lunch and therefore its justification for use is questionable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Meets . The fact that the coverage is spread over a number of only loosely connected events has no impact on whether the topic is notable. As for the last agreement betweeen the countries being in 1963, remember that |notability is not temporary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Well referenced and informative article. The nomination is based on the nominator's own opinion on what notability standards should be for these articles. In the absence of specific guidelines,  applies, and this article passes that test. Repeatedly nominating articles on personal standards is . The nominator is advised to write his standards as a guideline proposal and conduct an RfC for its adoption instead of these repeated nominations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DISRUPTION)

Comment: passes  with flying colours. I endorse Pcap comment of asking the nom to submit a guideline to RfC instead of keeping trying disruptive AfD's
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: That was the rationale you used when you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations|first listed this article @ AfD. Seems a |pointy nomination to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The article is padded with a moderate number of sources that are primary, non-independent, and/or not really about the subject of the article, but has no sources that fulfill the  requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There's a difference between being a historian and an encyclopedian, and if we're going to be mindful of it, we should delete this page and only create an article on this topic once coverage of the ''topic itself'' actually exists in reliable, independent sources. FWIW, these relations also fail
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: If the closer discounts everyone who is claiming ''any'' relation article is notable (the ongoing general dispute, and the Afd record on several other such articles is prima facie evidence this is not the case), and if they also discount all the |arguments to avoid being given above by various people, then he has no option but to delete this article, because the deleters are the ones pointing out how it miserably fails our criteria for inclusion. Some suggest it is 'well referenced'. So? This is not the sole bar for inclusion here, as everybody surely knows if they are being honest. The article itself does not say one substantial thing that suggests this specific relation has been noted in independent third party sources as a topic. It is a collation of various referenced factoids, which absolutely does not translate into a coherent topic of a notable bi-lateral relation. And let's not forget that the information is not 'lost' if this article is deleted, what little of worthy substance there is here, would simply be moved to the more appropriate location, which is not this random intersection, because a lot of this info is not exclusive to the Cyprus-Norway relation alone
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)