Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:04, 14 May 2009

Switzerland–Uruguay relations

Switzerland–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

whilst these 2 countries have resident embassies, their relationship is not widely covered and mainly limited in a multilateral sense with other countries Swiss govt doesn't say much either LibStar (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to actually read what Google gives you, not just do the search and stare at the first page and give up. Look at what a few hours of work did to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete While these countries actually have embassies, that in and of itself shows nothing of note. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and probably several others as do the bulk of these articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - it's an old relationship, but only because both countries are old. Relevant content covered at Nueva Helvecia and the lists of diplomatic missions. No independent sources to establish notability. - Biruitorul 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No rule requires info appear in only one place in Misplaced Pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You acknowlege the relationship. sigh. Ikip (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as a standard almanac entry per Misplaced Pages pillar I. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

:Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including , , , ,

LibStar (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin If my answer is valid for all the pertaining articles why should I not be using it in all the pertaining article deletions, and why should another editor be trying to invalidate my response? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - When a Swiss/Uruguay trade war breaks out, we can always start an article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I added info about Switzerland and Uruguay and the war. -- User:Docu
• NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
  Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What does List of diplomatic missions of Argentina have to do with the bilateral articles, its just a list of embassies? You do realize your article has been deleted and replaced as a redirect. It has no prose at all, it doesn't mention treaties, sports or economic cooperation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been updated, sorry for the confusion. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this unsourced stub. I find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep just because one doesn't want to expand it, it shouldn't be deleted. It now includes basic information on the topic. -- User:Docu

sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • You like it? -- User:Docu
• Comment. I don't have time to do anything to it or search for more now but certainly implies notability. I'd like to request a relist in order to allow more time for editors such as myself to do more thorough research. HJMitchell You rang? 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Do see the "independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG. - Biruitorul 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does it violate WP:GNG? It doesn't appear to at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The subject is the Swiss government's relations with Uruguay; the Swiss government is the source. - Biruitorul 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There is enough hear to establish notability, but the article would benefit from expansion with additional available material. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• keep; this one and the others. This entry in particular seems well sourced. It also sounds like many of these articles may be refactored into a longer article; worth keeping until then. As for notability: just because nothing has happened in the last few years for Google News to pick up doesn't make the relations between countries 'non-notable' -- the lack of any relations is also a circumstance worth noting between two countries, and I guarantee the topic of relations between these two countries is notable for residents of each country who happens to be living in the other. We're not short on space: if someone is willing to create these articles and willing to reference them they should be at liberty to create every combination of interest, with perhaps a bias towards summary articles ("foreign relations of..."). Each of the dozens of different countries in these various articles that LibStar is nominating for deletion have their own history and circumstance; I would not presume to judge their foreign relations "non-notable" based on a stub article! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I always do a Google news search on all dates. A common misconception is that google news can only search recent news. I actually don't nominate most bilateral articles I come across, but some of them are just plain notable. of course if people can find reliable sources they are welcome to. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to actually read what Google gives you, not just do the search and look at the first page and give up. Look at what a few hours of work did to the article. Based on your behavior you appear to just run the search to give the appearance of due diligence. It appears you nominate the articles that don't have a reference section, without attempting to improve before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. No, I actually don't nominate most bilateral articles I come across even if it has no references. I also check foreign ministry websites if it contains any usefulness and the existence of embassies (the existence of embassies is not the sole indicator). but similarly for you writing "keep almanac entry" at least 10 times is hardly proof you've found reliable sources. I'm happy to see if you find can reliable sources for others I've nominated. but if no one can find sources to establish notability then clearly the article should not exist. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course the question is: why didn't you find the well sourced information when you claimed you performed due diligence and searched? I don't have any secret search engine that gives me access to information not available to you. Yet now there is a full article. You are supposed to be fixing the articles before nominating for deletion. And the Almanac Pillar of Misplaced Pages is still valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. Well my google news searches were obviously not good enough this time. but I should add that most bilateral articles I've nominated have been deleted. maybe not this time. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder how many of them were improperly searched before they were deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

the same thing could be asked of any article on any topic in the history of Misplaced Pages that has been deleted not just bilateral relations, you are welcome to request a deletion review, if you disagree. mind you, you would think other (not all) editors would show proof of searching themselves if they supported delete. LibStar (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep incredibly well referenced article. Lets remember WP:BATTLEGROUND folks. Ikip (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

same token some people spend a lot of time copy and pasting in AfDs without attempting to address the notability of the article subject. Richard and I were merely discussing the merits of my nomination and he is entitled to do that in addressing the notability of the article subject. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates