Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Republic – Uruguay 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic – Uruguay relations

Non-notable combination of these embassies, fails to having third-party sources to find this article. [1] ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If only we could turn back time and prevent all of these articles from ever happening. What a waste of resources. JBsupreme (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is
notability requirements. This information is better conveyed by 208 articles on the foreign relations of each sovereign country rather than 20,000+ "bilateral" combinations. Edison (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Several of these have been closed recently as "Keep," apparently ignoring the "Delete" opinions. Note that the number of editors arguing for deletion or keeping matters less than the soundness of the arguments and that they are based on cited guidelines and policies. Edison (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am in fully agree with Edison above, in the end Delete and Keep have no merits if there are no actual arguments to correspond with them. Anyone can say delete because the article is, "it is completely random" and anyone can say keep because "it looks okay to me". But citing policy, and having well intentioned debates will help decide keep or delete. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe there is nothing notable in these relations. I confirmed that by searching
secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No third-party coverage of the article topic to show notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to think the information will be better conveyed in combination articles, which will each of them contain hundreds of sections and inherently duplicate each other. Rather, since there is no time limit for expansion, work on this one and the others. The guidelines for inclusion are what we want them to me: there isn't anybody else making the rules for us. It is probably better to keep them all than to have these time-consuming debates. DGG (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that there is no information. If something notable about the Czech Republic ever impacts upon Uruguay, then the Uruguay article will have to cover it (something notable about Uruguay has to be mentioned in its article). Similarly, anything of importance to the Czech Republic has to be noted in its article. Therefore, a pointless "relations" article like this one has no prospect of development (until such time as the relations really do become notable – probably never). Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added links related to the history of foreign relations, business contracts between Czech Rep. (Czechoslovakia) and Uruguay etc. There is information sufficient for the existence of that article, in my opinion. I don't vote keep or delete, since I have no intention to work on it. Links already added in the article, check it, please. It's all in Czech, but relevant and from various sources.--

Vejvančický (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete The
general notability guidelines are pretty clear: WP should not have an article on a topic if no reliable sources have covered the subject yet. This is clearly the case here: the article cites exactly zero reliable, secondary, independent sources; and searching around I've seen no evidence of non-trivial coverage of these countries' bilateral relations in such sources. I agree that wikipedia can make note of the fact that the Czech Republic has an embassy in Montevideo and an honorary consulate in Maldonado, and that Uruguay has an embassy in Prague. But a stand alone article is not the place, at least for now. These facts are best included in Foreign relations of the Czech Republic and Foreign relations of Uruguay. In fact the all information already is including in Foreign relations of Uruguay. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I did a search in Spanish [2]. complete lack of coverage of bilateral relations, only multilateral and of course football which they both have decent sides. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 2 June 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.