Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Paraguay 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 to delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria–Paraguay relations

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

another random almost laughable combination. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - two fairly small countries on opposite sides of the world are unlikely to have notable relations, and no sources indicate they do. - Biruitorul Talk 02:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to establish notability on, and not likely to, either. -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak, weak keep I managed to find one source after roughly 30 seconds of searching,, and there may be more out there...  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a) You can't really have a viable article saying "Bulgaria and Paraguay have relations, any by the way, they also have a treaty regarding visa suppression for holders of all types of passports"; b) We would need a secondary source telling us why that treaty matters; see WP:PSTS for details. - Biruitorul Talk 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved. Martintg (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Random and trivial. Dahn (talk) 15:45, 28 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.