Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Uruguay relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Australia–Uruguay relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. this article hangs off 2 fishing incidents, these type of incidents would qualify as WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ROUTINE. Australia has very little ties with Uruguay. and playing games in FIFA World Cup adds zero to notability. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per first AfD. The Australian Bureau of Statistics tracks the economic relationship, the DFAT page tracks the diplomatic relationship, Museum Victoria discusses the 1970s Uruguayan immigration history.  That's enough for GNG.  The fishing diplomacy stuff is encyclopedic - not worthy of its own article, but adds significantly to this one and should not be removed. --99of9 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Australian Bureau of Statistics tracks the economic relationship, the DFAT page tracks the diplomatic relationship" does not advance notability, Australian govt depts track every country Australia does trade with. Yhe article is padded with tidbits of minor information. "In the lead up to the 2005 selection of director-general of the World Trade Organization, Australia declined to endorse the Uruguayan candidate Carlos Perez del Castillo over Pascal Lamy, despite the countries being agricultural export allies" does not add to notability nor does adding pictures of football matches. Nor does a working holiday visa arrangement, Australia has working holiday visa arrangements with over 30 countries. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources explicitly state that "The work and holiday visa (subclass 462) differs from a working holiday visa (subclass 417)", and that "Uruguay will become the 10th country to join". So you can strike your 30 quick smart.  --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jostling for votes on key positions of power such as leading the WTO is much of what international diplomacy is these days, and given that there was a whole article in the Australian about the Uruguayan approach, entitled "Canberra may defy ally over WTO job", and claiming that it may strain relations, you can be pretty sure that they think it's important. --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How many countries do you think are more closely connected to Uruguayan forestry than Australia, given that their trees come from Australia?? There is a whole paragraph in waiting here, because the scientific literature includes cases of pest transfer and even pest species-crossing. --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I never said the soccer picture made the topic notable. I put that in to improve the article (yes, sporting relations are an important subset of the relationship). That's what I'm here for.  Frankly I don't see any chance this will be deleted, so am happy to keep working on what I think is clearly a valuable article. --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. There is enough coverage to support an article. Source examples include, but are not limited to (many are non-English):, , , , , , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 08:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2013 (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.