Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Uruguay relations
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 merge to Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz talk 07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia–Uruguay relations
- )
no resident ambassadors, no visits for either leader, no formal bilateral agreements http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/4725.html LibStar (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - totally random pairing of two small countries on opposite sides of the world that have essentially zero influence on one another. - Biruitorul Talk 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Editors can judge for themselves [1]; a few friendly agreements, a little bit of commerce, but nothing that merits its own article. Mandsford (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong re-direct and merge into talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Uruguay. The content currently available does not appear to merit a separate article, and is better understood in the context of the overview articles. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at talk) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that two bilateral agreements exist, one cannot assert that this relationship will never likely be able to assert notability in the future. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [2]. Given that where some bilateral agreements exists, there is scope for future development, even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time. Re-directs are cheap. talk) 00:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that two bilateral agreements exist, one cannot assert that this relationship will never likely be able to assert notability in the future. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [2]. Given that where some bilateral agreements exists, there is scope for future development, even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time. Re-directs are cheap.
- Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Dialogue 10:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Dialogue 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Dialogue 10:24, 27 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.