Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austria–Colombia 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Austria–Colombia relations

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

whilst the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations mainly multilateral. . Dominican embassy siege incident is covered in its own article. the 2 agreements are minor .1 contract doesn't make for notable relations. and for pure WP:SYNTH, this article clearly is not evidence of relations. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Another Groubani article. What information there is can be mentioned in the "FRO" articles (Foreign Relations Of...) for Austria and Colombia.  Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not this again. Created by a banned sockpuppet with a history of creating these articles.  Little or no valuable information in the article.  If the hostage incident is notable it can be merged into Austria or Columbia--RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete OMG will these things ever stop coming? It's like the zombie corps of Wikipedia, bilateral relations articles between countries with no real relations.  Did any Austrian Nazis flee to Colombia?  Gee.  Delete. Topic certainly is not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I tracked down and added a bit of content, maybe marginally relevant. The two countries do about $24 million of trade - not much - and Austria is affected by the cocaine trade, as is almost every country in the rich world. That is all I could find on a quick search. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There appears to be enough reliable info. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent coverage of topic as a whole. Ergo, topic is non-notable per WP:GNG. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  04:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Aymatth2's additions have demonstrated verifiability and notability. In response to Mandsford's comment above, the fact that the creator of this article was later blocked from editing for sockpuppetry is irrelevant to the value of this article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment it seems the biggest section on this article is cocaine. I'm concerned that synthesis is being used to somehow say things like "Authorities estimate there were 10,000 Austrian drug addicts in 1994." are related to bilateral relations. In fact the articlesays that a lot of drug addicts were addicted to MDMA from Netherlands, this is pure synthesis. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * given that 60% of world's cocaine come from Colombia is it no surprise that some of the money/drugs has ended up in austria? LibStar (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The cocaine connection is relevant as an aspect of the relationship. Presumably any other rich country would have a similar connection with Colombia, also relevant, in the same way that oil supply would be relevant to most articles about relations with Saudi Arabia. But the main part of the article should be on official relations, and so far there is no evidence of anything notable about those relations - not even one independent source commenting on one meeting or agreement. Hard to defend keeping the article unless some fresh material is dug up. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps thats true but Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. This section looks well researched at first glance but dig a little deeper and some synthesis and unreferenced claims show up.  Claims that Austria is a transit country are not backed up by the source cited.  In fact the State Department material cited shows Austria as a money laundering site.  Looks like a case of writing then quickly looking for sources rather than the other way around.
 * The first sentence of the State Department source (which is in the public domain) says "Austria considers itself primarily a transit country for cocaine and heroin destined for larger West European markets." Aymatth2 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments stands as the article describes the Austria's primary role here as one of laundering, not trafficking.--RadioFan (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The State Department article discusses all aspects of narcotics usage and control in Austria. "Foreign criminal groups dominate the illegal drug trade destined for and transiting Austria. Cocaine traffic is primarily via South American couriers. ... in 1994 Austrian authorities seized ... 53 kgs. of cocaine (compared to 84 kgs. in 1993). ... The arrival of South American cocaine via Central European airports was a new route. Also in a change of pattern, cocaine couriers were more often Europeans than Nigerians. Cocaine is destined partly for domestic markets, and partly for transit to Italy and Germany." What is the issue? Obviously Austria is affected by the cocaine traffic, as is every other European country. There are plenty of sources. The fact is relevant to the relationship with Colombia, but only peripherally. If that is the only connection, there is not enough to justify this article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article makes credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing is sufficient to show notability. The same can probably be done for every pair of medium-sized nations.  DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I just can't see stretching the meger amount of relations enough to call it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The current version shows clear notable relationships between the two nations.  D r e a m Focus  19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has improved considerably since nomination. Good job, gang!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:37, 13 August 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.