Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Peru 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Peru relations

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

Random bilateral pairing; not inherently notable (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Serbia relations). No additional material to indicate notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:N Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - does meet
  WP:N. Bulgarian parliament cancels trade agreement with Peru (2006)Peru: Four more countries issue arrest warrants against Fujimori (2003)Peru and Bulgaria Plan Tie (1969)Peru, Bulgaria Agree to Ties, Tass Reports (1969) Gotta go! WilyD 13:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What we have is that they cancelled a trade agreement (probably not that important - I doubt bilateral trade is that big), were one of a slew of countries to call for Fujimori's arrest (if really notable, can be mentioned at
    this model of noting the date. Also, I should say they have no embassies, which is telling. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment I think that it's important for people to look at the cites that WilyD brings up, and I apologize if my editing of his post-- to reflect the title of the articles-- is out of line. We're not supposed to edit the posts of others, although I'm doing this for constructive purposes; I shall cease if anyone objects to it. That said, I'm still out on notability; the cancellation of the trade agreement is a recent enough story that it's probably covered elsewhere. I'd remind editors that if something was notable in 1969, notability does not expire. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of these citations establish any notability for any of this as a topic. Not 40 years ago, not today, not any time in between. I'm not convinced the trade thing is notable for the relevant "Foreign relations of" articles, but that's a content discussion to take place at those articles.
  talk) 18:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The existence of relations does not make them notable. No references. Embassies aren't even in the actual countries represented. Simply not notable compared to other random pairs of countries (and this one is pretty random). --BlueSquadronRaven 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, no references is a misrepresentation. Beyond that, "Meets WP:N, but so do lots of comparable articles, so let's delete them all" is a pretty bizarre argument. WilyD 00:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per WilyD.
• Note this AfD has been included on
  talk) 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There's nothing in the article to distinguish it from the other 40,000 possible pairs of 2 countries. Merge with Foreign Relations of Peru or Foreign Relations of BulgariaJwray (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Bulgaria, Template:Foreign relations of Peru, Category:Bilateral relations of Bulgaria, and Category:Bilateral relations of Peru are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. I also see no harm in having 40,000 articles detailing the realations between every country pair possible. — Reinyday, 03:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "No standard"? How about
    WP:N, as the nomination hints? - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid reasons. LibStar (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete. the fact that "Peru is represented in Bulgaria through its embassy in Athens (Greece). Bulgaria is represented in Peru through its embassy in Brasília (Brazil)." really says that neither country thinks the other is important enough to have an embassy there. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not every nation has the money to maintain as many embassies, and also, with communications as good as they are these days, you don't really need an ambassador there. Cheaper to talk online or on the phone, or fly someone over for meetings at times, than to maintain a full embassy in a nation. Dream Focus 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. Opening an embassy in another country says something about that country's relationship. There are things that an ambassador living in a country can do that is a lot harder by phone, such as open trade and diplomatic relationships. Embassies also assist expats and travellers from their home countries, this is also an indication of ties between nations. If what you are saying is true, then there is no point in this day and age of phone and internet of having any embassy. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, opening embassies is a useful symbol. However, it is not an essential criterion for notability of the relationship.

It's not just the phone and the Internet that has been developed in the recent decades. There's another, often overlooked but no less important system: roads. Once upon a time, it would have taken days to travel from, say, Amsterdam to Brussels. Nowadays, it's a few hours by a good, well-maintained highway. Once upon a time, it made sense for every king, every president, every sovereign to maintain separate ambassadors with every other sovereign for fast consultation. The world was a larger place then than now, and these days, fast consultation is cheaper and doesn't take quite as many ambassadors. Many countries maintain a single embassy for all three Benelux countries, for example. Some maintain a single embassy for two or three Nordic countries at once. Maintaining a single embassy for Brazil and Peru, well-connected neighbours, is no different. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - sorry, but I do not see a lot in the stub to show this relationship meets
  citations available? Bearian (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep If you search in the native languages of those two nations, you could surely find news articles about the relationship between them. Is it realistic to assume there has been absolutely no news coverage about trade or diplomatic meetings for decades? If we knew the names of all the big newspapers in those two countries, and did a proper search, surely we'd find something. Dream Focus 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that's realistic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is all I could find from El Comercio (Peru), which is supposed to be one of Peru's major newspapers; Bulgaria recognizes Peru's claim to "Pisco", Illicit transfer of weaponry from Bulgaria to Peru causes political scandal, Commerce with the European Union expanded by 28.7%, Bulgaria one of the mentioned nations (2008). I vote keep as the subject is somewhat notable.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can a viable article actually be constructed out of that? "They have relations! And Bulgaria supports Peru over Tisco! And they had a tiff over weapons transfers! And Bulgaria is one of 9 EU countries to have more trade with Peru in 2008! The end." - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's enough information for a start-class article. Or should we begin to delete all articles that are start-class?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a straw man: start-class articles can generally undergo further expansion; this one is bound to remain a small string of disparate bits of news. Especially troubling is that the relationship itself is covered nowhere, only transient interactions between the two parties that an editor has decided constitute notable facets of the relationship. But of course, you'll never find a paragraph in a book or even a newspaper article actually discussing "relations between Bulgaria and Peru" as a discrete topic: no one has deemed it worthy of scholarly or even press attention, and neither should we. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to presented sources, this is quite an interesting relationship with a number of notable conflicts and a number of notable making-ups. These should be discussed in the article, and it'll make a nice addition to Wikipedia's treatment of international relations. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements made per
  WP:AFTER and notability shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 17 April 2009 (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.