Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea–Turkey 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea–Turkey relations

[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 really isn't much to these relations besides a bit of Turkish aid. There are no embassies, agreements, state visits and trade is "negligible". The excessive reading list makes no mention of Turkey in any of the titles. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this article is deleted, I'd just like the sentence "Turkey also contributed diplomatically to find a diplomatic solution to Papua New Guinea’s conflict with Indonesia..." to be preserved somewhere in history, because that did have me rolling. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you preserved it by saying it now. Geschichte (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ba-dum-tiss. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the odd "further reading" section, I'm not seeing evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish the notability of this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2021 (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.