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 per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Afd is not cleanup, remember WP:BEFORE! Skomorokh 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Sainteny agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete barely enough context to identify who may have agreed, but none to say what they agreed to: that Ho would pick up the bar tab? Does every international meeting resuling in some joint communique or agreeemnt sufficiently notable to merit an article? anyway...this one liner does not advance the state of human knowledge or the knowledge of the reader either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep so fix it! Information available from which to do it TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. French recognition of Vietnamese autonomy ... seems, uh, significant. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs expansion, but notable. Yopie 14:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
• Keep or possibly merge with article on History of Vietnam. Certainly do not delete. In view of the post-WWII history of Vietnam, this was certainly a significant event. I am not sure whether it is properly described as a treaty (but unqualified to comment). It is certainly more than a communique (in the sense of a press release. Many articles started as stubs, which is the only obvious problem with this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (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.