Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhutan–Brazil 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. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bhutan–Brazil relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. this is trying to make notable relations about a relation with a tiny Asian country. no embassies and Bhutan doesn't even bother allocating a non resident ambassador to Brazil. the common memberships prove nothing about actual relations. the level of trade is very low, even the article admits "In 2011, Bhutan ranked 236th among Brazil's trade partners, having a 0,00% participation in Brazilian foreign trade". the fact that you have to pass through a third country to fly to Bhutan adds zero to relations. the claim that Brazil is interested in Bhutan's happiness index seems more like the opinion of one person and not the Government. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how this violates WP:GNG. It has a significant amount of independent and reliable sources to back it up. Just because it's not a strong relationship doesn't mean it's not worthy of being described. WP:NOTPAPER. Pikolas (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * almost all of the sources do not deal with actual relations in depth. Relations do exist but they are minor not notable. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * re WP:NOTPAPER : "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". LibStar (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. While I agree that the article is unlikely to become much bigger than it already is, and that it hardly asserts the subject's relevance, it is indeed sourced, though that part could be improved with more independent sources that actually cover the subject, and not only mention it. I know it's strange to have an article saying "these countries have no significant relations, no embassies, and almost no trades", but, well, that's still information. If I had come across this article, I wouldn't even mind proposing its deletion. Victão Lopes  Fala! 19:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Although I agree this is near to farcical, the nom must surely be aware that the measure of whether an article can be sustained on a subject has nothing to do with whether it is important, thriving, indepth or large, but whether it is reliably sourced. I see that it meets the requirements of the GNG.  Done deal.   Ravenswing   23:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the bare existence of relations is not the same as notable relations. you even admit relations are farcical. the article is based on a series of factoids. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * weak Delete I normally !vote to keep these articles but this time I think it is indeed too minor. (I advised the contributor yestersday that they were pushing things a little beyond what would be supported.) TheGNG needs to be used with common sense, both for keeping and for deleting.  DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to Brazil–India relations. Not a significant independent relationship, but merely an add-on to Brazil–India relations. India remains influential over Bhutan's foreign policy, defence and commerce.  Bhutan has had no ambassador to Brazil.  Brazil's ambassador to Bhutan is in his day job Brazil's ambassador to India.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with such a merge as it is POV. Same way that Australia is influential over Nauru, Papua New Guinea, does not mean bilaterals of these small nations get redirected to larger nations. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per DGG. By all normal measures of bilateral relations, this fails - de minimus trade, no state visits, etc. - yet it passes WP:GNG on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources.  Easily fits into the category of WP:ODD. This is right at the edge of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (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.