| Revision as of 01:20, 5 May 2009 editIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 edits →Colombia–Greece relations← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:20, 5 May 2009 edit undoIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 edits →Colombia–Greece relationsNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ::::Of course it does, if the "significant coverage" bar is completly unattainable. ] (]) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ::::Of course it does, if the "significant coverage" bar is completly unattainable. ] (]) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Well, unless we throw ] out the window, deletion (or at best merging (not that there's much to merge) or redirecting) is the solution. - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | :::::Well, unless we throw ] out the window, deletion (or at best merging (not that there's much to merge) or redirecting) is the solution. - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::If any AFD shows that no source will ever be considered "significant coverage" by Biruitorul it is this response to the 36 references provided by ] at ]. There are no amount of refences which will ''ever'' be signifigant enough for Biruitorul. 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. – <strong><font style="color:#228B22">]</font>(<small>]</small>) </strong> 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. – <strong><font style="color:#228B22">]</font>(<small>]</small>) </strong> 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 01:20, 5 May 2009
Colombia–Greece relations
- Colombia–Greece relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I've done searches for all these pairs; it seems Greek relations with Latin America are, in general, routine and have not been the subject of significant coverage, either in news articles or books. The presence of embassies is already noted at Diplomatic missions of Greece (and the equivalent pages). Where noteworthy, the Greek diasporas already have pages: Greeks in Argentina, Greeks in Brazil, Greek Mexican. Other than that, there isn't much to see here. If someone does find significant coverage for one or more of these pairings, I'll be glad to strike them out as that happens. Biruitorul 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Argentina–Greece relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Greco-Brazilian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Greece–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Greece–Peru relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Greece–Venezuela relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Question Biruitorul, of the several pairing articles you have put up for deletion, have you ever struck an entry or closed any deletion debate on these country pairings which you have opened? Ikip (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, and I will be happy to strike pairings if and when significant coverage is found. - Biruitorul 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it does, if the "significant coverage" bar is completly unattainable. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, unless we throw WP:GNG out the window, deletion (or at best merging (not that there's much to merge) or redirecting) is the solution. - Biruitorul 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- If any AFD shows that no source will ever be considered "significant coverage" by Biruitorul it is this response to the 36 references provided by User:WilyD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations. There are no amount of refences which will ever be signifigant enough for Biruitorul. 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, unless we throw WP:GNG out the window, deletion (or at best merging (not that there's much to merge) or redirecting) is the solution. - Biruitorul 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it does, if the "significant coverage" bar is completly unattainable. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, and I will be happy to strike pairings if and when significant coverage is found. - Biruitorul 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Question Biruitorul, of the several pairing articles you have put up for deletion, have you ever struck an entry or closed any deletion debate on these country pairings which you have opened? Ikip (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations task force deletions. – Marcusmax(speak) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep all - Two-way resident ambassadors and embassies, a total of 11 embassies. (Exception: Colombia is represented in Greece through its embassy in Rome.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep per petri Krohn. Ikip (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep all there is a strong predicent against these type of bundled articles, besides Petri Krohn has it right with his rationle. Tavix | Talk 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - the embassies' presence is recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and the equivalent articles. So we already have that information, it's not significant coverage, and plenty of pairings even with embassies have been deleted (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Poland–Uruguay relations comes to mind). We're still waiting for significant coverage, which would actually validate any of these. And Tavix, surely a full week is enough for anyone to investigate just six articles. - Biruitorul 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Remember the train wreck last time these kind of lists were bundled? Even if someone thinks that all but one should be deleted it really complicates things. I know people can investigate six articles in a week, but that is besides the point; usually some are more notable than others. Tavix | Talk 23:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Romania relations worked just fine. Look, I understand why bundles of 20 might be too much to stomach, or why bundles of half a dozen involving completely disparate countries may be a problem, but I really don't think it's that hard to assess the notability of the relations of Greece (population 11 million) with 6 countries on the opposite side of the world, with which it has very little in common. I've said why the embassy argument is a red herring; the lack of significant coverage (unless that turns up) simply means we should delete these. - Biruitorul 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep of Argentine and Brazilian articles - many high-level contacts, enough for my standards. The others are a mere keep. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you happen to have any independent sources to validate any of these assertions, or does WP:GNG get ignored yet again? - Biruitorul 00:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included on the and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip