Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–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   keep. Re-write has helped. X-Y's are not inherently notable for articles, but this one certainly is now. Many "delete" calls now changes. Strength of overwhelming Keep arguments and article is now significant (non-admin closure) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia–Uruguay relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another in a line of unsourced, "X-Y relations" stubs. In this instance, Australia and Uguguay are a long way away from each other and don't seem to have any overlapping diplomatic interests. This topic does not pass any of the notability guidelines when one considers this topic on its own; yes, newspaper articles can be found that ministers from australia and uruguay have exchanged hearty handshakes and pleasantries together, but this diplomatic relationship is not one of verifiable notability. That something can be verfied does not make it independently notable. Bali ultimate (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the one who contested the prod. Per the links on the articles talk page I hope I established that this is indeed notable. It appears relations have been stressed between these two countries recently over some kind of confrontation on an illegal fishing vessel, but the links I have provided also demonstrate that in the past the two have even issued joint statements over things such as tariffs that effect both their countries equally. So this relationship does appear to have notability. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 12:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the links carefully and i disagree. Why don't you generate some content with those links and put that in the article rather than just throwing up a bunch of blue numbers?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually thats not a bad idea, I bet I could even make a DYK out of this. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

*Delete The article in it's current state does not talk about relations between Australia and Uruguay. Basically it just says that the countries have consulates in the other country, and that they're part of 2 common organizations. Hardly encyclopedic material. Most of the links given in the talk page are not independent of the subject, and those that are would probably come under WP:NOT as non-notable news events. Anti venin  14:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per article rewrite. Anti  venin  16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Give the links another look down if i cannot use government sources and also news sources then what other sources would you consider as "independent" thanks - Marcusmax ( speak ) 14:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. I don't think government sources are independent of the subject, as they aren't written from a NPOV. News sources are ideal, but the incidents covered by the news sources are not individually notable, though I might be wrong here. Anti  venin  16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving it another look over, one of my biggest weaknesses is sourcing but I think for now we have just enough to prove there is just enough to make this notable. I am going to add more into the economy section as I have found some article, and books on something called the "Uruguay table" that affected Australia pretty substantially. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 16:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. The rewritten article establishes notability pretty well. Anti  venin  16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination . WWGB (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please take a moment to look the article over as I have updated it. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Article improved, revoking delete argument. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep well referenced article. Nominator themselves admits but downplays the notability of this subject. Ikip (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This debate was included on Articles for deletion/Austria–Egypt relations Ikip (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked, reiterate delete. That things are verifiable don't make them subjects in and of themselves.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Uruguayan Australian already has a separate article (though I question its notability too); a trade flow of 51 million AUD is almost nothing when compared to Australia's GDP of ~1.14 trillion AUD or even Uruguay's of ~53 billion AUD; and as for the fishing vessel incident - well, that's newsworthy, but hardly a milestone. The relationship is still, at its core, little more than a formality, and we need not retain an article about it. - Biruitorul Talk 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it's been upgraded. Keep nominating 'em so that the ones that can be improved will be.  However, it's my hope that persons who, in spite of warnings, keep cranking out these articles indiscriminately, should be banned.  Mandsford (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Australia and Uguguay are a long way away from each other and don't seem to have any overlapping diplomatic interests." What a strange reason for wanting deletion!  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 22:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Bilateral relations are not inherently notable, as established by numerous precedents. Neither their negligible trade flow, nor the small immigrant community (which has its own article anyway), nor a quickly-resolved minor "crisis" confer any special degree of notability onto the relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 22:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the political intersection equivalent of WP:ONEEVENT: There was a fishing incident between the two countries. That's about it. No more notable than a randomly chosen pair of countries' relations, nor than the average Pokemon. JJL (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article was mass produced with no attempt to demonstrate notability, and it's still not shown. Australia and Uruguay have a relationship, but it's minor and wholly in the context of other issues which should have their own articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning it up a little I appreciate it, but the only real issue in this is the fishing incident, everything else is just basic facts. I am all for getting rid of a large chunk of these x-y stub articles but this one here is much better referenced and even has some context to it in comparison to the others. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But what exactly takes the fishing incident out of the realm of news and into that of an event with encyclopedic notability? Has anyone mentioned it since its immediate aftermath? Has it appeared in any latterly-published studies of Australia-Uruguay relations? - Biruitorul Talk 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going neutral on this for now. Since my vote, Marcusmax has gone through another round (another fishing vessel), and I've added a sentence or two to the article. I think there may be something here, and notability might have been an easier case if the first creator had done more than simply state a fact. The business of Antarctic fisheries might well be important enough to salvage this article; I'm staying neutral and I consider this a borderline issue because I want to see more opinions by experienced editors who aren't necessarily in one camp or another. Delete for lack of notability: there simply isn't enough material here outside of the one incident, and no coverage of major and important issues. However, kudos to Marcusmax for their hard work. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks I appreciate it. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, people have cared enough about this bilateral relationship to write about it in independent reliable sources, so I do believe it's appropriate to have an article on it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep Meets the general notability guideline. I am not convinced by any of the rationales for deletion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Another one of those. Dahn (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - another one of those articles that establish notability through substantive coverage in reliable, third party sources. I see no argument presented to treat this as a highly unusual case, or any reason it needs a highly irregular outcome. Wily D  14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per my new standards. Plenty of reliable sources; permanent embassies; trade treaties, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Australia, Template:Foreign relations of Uruguay, Category:Bilateral relations of Australia, and Category:Bilateral relations of Uruguay 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. — Reinyday, 03:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As opposed to many in this series of X-Y relations, this has clearly sufficient notable content. Murtoa (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If a reliable source can be found. Valerian456  Hush,  Rush 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A reliable source for what piece of information? And are government statements reliable sources in all cases? This quick and easy remark raises more questions than it answers. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Great article. Rebecca (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another non-notable intersection of countries. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on can safely assume that adjacent countries will have notable relations. article has been enlarged sufficiently to show it. DGG (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment adjacent? JJL (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article's current version clearly meets all notability requirements.  D r e a m Focus  01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Are bilateral relations inherently notable? The awnser is obviously no. But with the current rewrite I think we can safely say that this particular set is.--Aldux (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Inherently, bilateral relations are not notable, however, there are exceptions if they are widely mentioned in reliable sources; in this case, the article is referenced well with reliable sources, so it passes our notability standards.  tempo di valse  [☎]  02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made per WP:AFTER and notability shown.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:59, 17 April 2009 (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.