China–Kosovo relations: Honestly I can't see why we need this and China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence , so filing this AFD because the IP will be unable to do so.  Courcelles ( talk ) 15:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , China ,  and Kosovo .  Courcelles ( talk ) 15:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  There are no diplomatic relations between China and Kosovo, this article was largely copied from the proposed target, the proposed target is the older article, and the articles have substantially similar content .  -- Bsherr ( talk ) 16:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Courcelles : would you consent to add India–Kosovo relations , too, which should similarly be redirected to India's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence ? -- Bsherr ( talk ) 16:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No objections here.  Courcelles ( talk ) 16:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would suggest starting a separate discussion for India–Kosovo relations – the sources will be different and trying to discuss the articles together will likely create confusion.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 16:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've added some additional sources to the article.  The topic seems to be notable, and there's material here that's not related to the 2008 declaration of independence.  Possibly the China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article should be merged into this one.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 16:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove this.  The article is the same.  In my opinion you should get rid of this and merge and or redirect it to China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  I think that is the appropriate action that we should take now.  So just redirect it now.  2603:7000:C53D:C27D:F9DE:9B5E:FD52:55FA ( talk ) 17:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But let’s redirect this to the China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  I’ll add your source Granger to the article China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence now.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 17:12, 26 May 2023 (from UTC) As I said, I don't think redirecting to that article is a good idea, because some of the material in this article is not related to the 2008 declaration of independence.  China–Kosovo relations are a broader topic than the reaction to the declaration of independence.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 17:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then do something like merge it or something.  I say redirect it or merge the two together in the article China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  2603:7000:C53D:C27D:F9DE:9B5E:FD52:55FA ( talk ) 17:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be better to merge China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence into China–Kosovo relations , as the latter can contain more information.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope either delete this article completely and/or merge it into the ar article of China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  That’s the only solution available.  Look at Russia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  That article is very long and it co rains information more than the reaction to the Declaration of Independence reaction information.  So just delete this article or merge it into China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence now.  There that’s it.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 16:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Russia article you mentioned does not contain any info not related to Russia's views on the independence of Kosovo.  The Chinese equivalent would not contain as much info as this article.  Also, please stop acting like a keep result is physically impossible.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not about physically impossible.  In my opinion the only option is to either delete or even merge this article into China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  That's the only solution that will work.  This article by DowntownRich should be removed permanently as per the User: Courcelles.  That's all for now NYCT192 ( talk ) 18:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keeping this will work as well, and just because this is the newer article doesn't mean it has to be the one merged.  I still say we merge the other article into this.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope QuicoleJR.  I say either merge this article into the article of China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or delete this article completely.  The users DowntownRich and NoonIcarus are the ones who created this here.  So get rid of this now.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 23:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , its over the WP:GNG bar and even if you think there shouldn't be two pages China–Kosovo relations is clearly the primary of the two topics not China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 17:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wrong just merge it into China’s reaction to the 2008 Kosovo Declaration of independence.  That’s the solution.  I will add Mx.Grangers source there.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 18:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tell you what let’s just delete this article.  That’s probably the best solution in my opinion.  So how about it people.  Let’s delete this article.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I guess the only choice we have is to either redirect, merge or delete this article completely.  That’s the only choices left in my opinion.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 03:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a complete lie.  A keep result is certainly a possibility, even if you don't like it.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope let’s just merge this article in into the article of China’s reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.  That’s more appropriate as I see it.  Mr. Quicole you are 100 percent wrong.  The economic relations could also be added to the article onChina’s reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence as well.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 16:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No it couldn't.  That would be outside the scope of that article.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It wil not be outside the scope of that article.  In fact we can improve that article by adding more details.  That's it.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 19:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think merging China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence into here would be more appropriate than the other way around.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wrong Quicole!!!! This article can be merged into China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence .  In fact the economic relations that MxGranger can be added as well.  You don’t know nothing QuicoleJr.  I know it.  Just either merge this article or delete it now.  That’s it I’m done here.  NYCT192 ( talk ) 16:07, 27 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep