Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Chile 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria–Chile relations

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

Random bilateral pairing; not inherently notable (see e.g. Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Serbia relations). No additional material to indicate notability. That Chile cut off relations with Bulgaria during WWII and that Bulgaria cut off relations with Chile after Pinochet's coup is interesting, but as Bulgaria was hardly unique in either of these instances, the matter can easily be mentioned at Foreign relations of Chile. That Bulgaria's foreign minister visited Chile four years ago is nice, but hardly more than a news story. Biruitorul Talk 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:N Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 12:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 12:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete given the cogent argument of the nominator. I do not see how these relations are notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources exist to establish notability for this topic. The relevant "Foreign relations of" articles are a target if anything happens encyclopedic in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone finds something, which i rather doubt they will. Not snow, though, in order to give a chance for it in the 7 days that AfDs now run. DGG (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently delete. Lacks content to be notable. feydey (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, doesn't look like it will be. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Establishment of embassies/consulates is a good indication of existing relations; finding specific information is just a matter of work.  The article needs to be expanded, not deleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * The embassies' existence is documented at Diplomatic missions of Bulgaria and Diplomatic missions of Chile; ambassadors do not automatically confer notability on a relationship (see e.g. Articles for deletion/Poland–Uruguay relations); sources would still be needed to establish that. - Biruitorul Talk 18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to specify which particular sentence of WP:N makes an ambassadorial exchange (which, I agree, should be sourced in this article; but that's an expansion/copyedit request, not a grounds for automatic deletion) unnotable?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:50, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic has failed to receive (per WP:N) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; it is already covered elsewhere; at least one previous discussion has found a lack of notability in a relationship consisting merely of an ambassadorial exchange; and even WP:DIPLOMAT does not recognise inherent notability for ambassadors, much less for the relations they embody. The burden of proof is on others to supply reliable secondary sources showing notability (in addition to that already recorded in the lists). - Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense and I see your logic. However, since I personally disagree with this interpretation/approach, I am going to stick to my "keep" vote.  I do not believe it is right to put an article up for deletion without giving it a reasonable chance for expansion first&mdash;did anyone bother to notify WP:BG and/or WP:CHILE before nominating this article for deletion?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:18, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your perspective and I suppose the best I can say is that if this ends up being deleted, there's not much content there and recreation won't be too much of a hassle, should additional sources turn up (which I hope they do - more articles is usually a laudable thing). - Biruitorul Talk 00:18, 16 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.