Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–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   delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Belgium–Uruguay relations

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

another random country pairing with no evidence of a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability of subject not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Assume good faith on the part of the editors; there is no reason for deletion pressure to produce documentation for this article to exist. Belgium is a major post-colonial power and major trading nation.  There is probably some football history as well, from the era of Uruguay dominance in World Cup competition. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Belgium a major colonial power and trading nation with respect to Uruguay, though? And football has nothing to do with international diplomatic relations, unless someone signs a peace accord at the World Cup? These points aside, some of these articles have been around for over a year without any work done on them, if pressure is what it takes to get them fleshed out from their current state which practically begs them to be listed here, then so be it. I would assume more good faith on the creating editor had they simply not been cookie-cuttered onto the wiki with virtually the same (limited) information in each one. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "there is no reason for deletion pressure to produce documentation for this article to exist."? Obviously there is. The article should've had documentation from the moment it was created. The article creator has done this before, so they should know better. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. The work will get done.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - zero evidence of actual notability to the relationship presented. - Biruitorul Talk 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Idle speculations are not a substitute for sources to show that this is a subject of interest. WillOakland (talk) 16:04, 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.