Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Peru relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

noting that there exists no agreements between these 2 countries except 2 weaker memos of understanding. yes there have been state and ministerial visits but it always under the context of APEC multilateral forums and meetings. no significant coverage of any notable relations LibStar (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No refs to show it is more than one more criss-cross listing of two countries out of the hundreds in the world. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no evidence of a significant relationship. Australia doesn't maintain an embassy in Peru, and there doesn't appear to be any state visit between the leaders of the two nations.  Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no notability in these bilateral countries. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable bilateral relationship. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's coverage of Australia's relationship with Peru doesn't indicate that there are or have been notable ties between the countries. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I sourced A$1.5 billion of foreign direct investment from Australia to Peru, with a number of minerals and mining companies listed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the amount of trade is not a criterion, notability requires third party coverage as per WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am continuing to find more and more Australian investment and direct ties to Peru, and if there was a strong Mining in Peru wikipedia article this article would make a lot more sense. WP:ITSNOTFINISHED is reason to keep, and just because the article doesn't yet have third party coverage included doesn't mean it's not there from sources we haven't located (the specialized mining trade press and the Peruvian press are underrepresented).  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * added two more refs today (on agricultural trade), specifically referencing upcoming trade talks. The relevance of this article is getting more obvious as I work on it more.   Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * is WP:ITSNOTFINISHED a policy or guideline? it does not appear to exist. I'm not convinced by the additions, most of the companies you list Rio Tinto Group, BHP Billiton, SKM operate in many many countries not just Peru and Peru is not their main foreign operation. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment there is a distinct lack of non government sources ie independent third party sources to describe these relations. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep folowing improvements by editor Edward Vielmetti. Even with the scarcity of non government sources, there seems to be a good IAR case to keep bilateral relations articles like this, due to the clear accademic and practical value. For example to businesses assessing the prospects for trade. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL for businesses it not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IAR arguments dont need to be valid in the sense of according with policy, as long as they show there would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. If you and Biruitorul dont like the pro business angle, what about the benefits for world peace and international co-operation, for example when delegates are at a summit they can check on the relationships other participants have with each other.  IPE theory teaches that the more information is available, the better the chances of optimun outcomes being reached! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * you're still using a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. we don't relax notability criterion so people can find it useful. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom and Mansford. This topic falls under the general notability guidelines which require that there be direct detailed coverage of a topic in multiple reliable, independent sources if we are to have an article about it on wikipedia. I'm not seeing that for this topic. Yilloslime T C  17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as stated, no coverage of the topic exists in independent sources. And no, FeydHuxtable, we're not here as an investment prospectus for businesses, but as an encyclopedia. Learn the difference. - Biruitorul Talk 07:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is simply not an encyclopedic subject, and crystallballing to make it seem like one is an old, tired, sophistical tactic. Dahn (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As illustrated above, this intersection between Australia and Peru is not encyclopedic as of yet.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The mere existence of the pedestrian functions of govt. doesn't make the relationship notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Trade relations count. In this case, they are major trade relations supported by multiple sources. They are natural trading partners, as are most nations immediately across an ocean from each other.    DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * but are they are notable relations, there is a complete lack of third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Libstar, there's coverage now from three newspapers (two Australian, one Peruvian) referencing upcoming trade talks. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Upcoming talks? You mean talks that haven't happened? Let me gaze into my WP:CRYSTALball. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.