Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Latvia 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. The article's supporters are encouraged to strengthen its references in order to avoid a reprise of this discussion. Thank you. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria–Latvia relations

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

lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations mostly bilateral. yes there is coverage of the usual double taxation agreement but that in itself is not enough for notability. all EU nations have double taxation agreements. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and handle IAW the Foreign Relations of X precedent. JJL (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The countries have made strides with relations having signed double taxation agreements as noted above, free trade agreements, economic cooperation agreements and also a high level state visit between presidents of the two countries., , , , , , , , , . These sources help this article meet WP:N standards, this isn't just your average double taxation agreement and never speak again ordeals this is a set of complex relations that have had presidential visits, ministry visits many agreements. I know I will likely be picked apart because well 90% percent of the time I have a keep opinion on these relations articles but the evidence proves that relations between these two countries are indeed notable certainly not as notable as some but plenty more notable then most. -- Marcusmax ( speak ) 02:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the sources identified by Marcusmax to the article, with titles (Marcusmax - better you should do that). The subject looks notable to me, but the article needs expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga has shaken hands with Georgi Parvanov (and smiled while doing so!), and yes, they've signed the usual pieces of paper one might expect two Eastern European democracies to have done. But are there multiple, independent sources discussing "Bulgaria–Latvia relations" in depth? No, of course not. What Marcusmax has found is trivia we'd never notice outside this series of nonsense articles (world leaders are constantly visiting each other, yet somehow we get by without recording the great majority of those visits), totally lacking in contextual relevance and only picked to make this topic seem important. Notability is not, in fact, apparent from the sources, and as no one else has bothered to actually document "Bulgaria–Latvia relations", neither should we. - Biruitorul Talk 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. The references mentioned above, and in the article, simply list non-notable items that naturally occur between all countries. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very adequate sourcing, reliable enough in this particular. The relationship between two previously soviet union-controlled countries is likely to be notable. I once intended to try to develop a list of acceptable and unacceptable criteria with another editor. I have not, because in thinking it over, I have concluded that the establishment of diplomatic relations itself is a Big Deal, is not done lightly, and when there are treaties as well, which there almost always are, there is importance enough for an article. Although a month ago I might not have kept some of these articles, the time for reflection has lef me to the conclusion that in all cases except the truly trivial ones with mini-nations, there probably should be an article. DGG (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another pairing of two nations drawn out of a hat that really doesn't show any significant relationship beyond the normal functions all govts. undertake on a regular basis. Nothing to see here, move along...Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I agree with everything DGG said. Its exactly what I would have said. Spongefrog,   (talk to me, or else)  18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the bilateral relations of all countries (unless totally nonm-existent will always be notable. Since Latvia is a member of EU, and Bulgaria either a candidate or recently joined (I forget which), theri bilateral relations will certainly be soemthing worth having an article about.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * no, this does not equate to automatic notability. and Bulgaria is a EU member. examples of EU member pairings that have been deleted include Estonia-Luxembourg, Latvia-Luxembourg, Cyprus Ireland, Belgium-Cyprus, Estonia-Slovenia, Latvia-Slovakia. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of significant coverage of the topic of Bulgaria-Latvia relation in independent secondary sources. There appears to be enough articles on trade agreements and official visits that one could probably synthesize them into a decent treatment of the topic, but that's not what we do here at wikipedia. Yilloslime T C  17:46, 8 July 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.