Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Uzbekistan 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations

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

No evidence of notability through reliable sources. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable in the usual way. +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  and so forth.  It may surprise you to know that to find evidence of notability through reliable sources you have to look for it. Wily D  17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so the news media cover Bulgaria and Uzbekistan; that doesn't mean any independent source discusses this relationship in depth. Visits, memoranda and the like are trivia that we would never dream of mentioning outside this series of nonsense articles; nor should we here. - Biruitorul Talk 18:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If any entry shows that no source will ever be considered "significant coverage" it is this response to the massive amount of references. Ikip (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. Foreign relations of the 203 sovereign countries are best discussed in the article about the country, or a standalone article if a major country, rather than in 20,000 such binary stubs. A link to the country's foreign ministry website will provide more up-to-date info than a robostub created and neglected. Edison (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WikiProject International relations has some well thought out advice (see WikiProject International relations) for when bilateral relations between two nations are notable. This article does not even assert to meet any of them. This sort of material should just be covered in the articles of each nation if it is even notable enough to do so.Locke9k (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivia best discussed in Bulgaria and Uzbekistan respectively. Wuzzifier (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User indef blocked, see ANI thread --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this unsourced stub, without even a bare assertion of notability. I can find no reliable independent sources that discuss this obscure bilateral relationship (how obscure? According to our unsourced stub, Uzbekistan houses the guy who's supposed to be tending this relationship with Bulgaria in... Uzbekistan.)Bali ultimate (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You found no sources at all? Perhaps WilyD can give you some pointers on how to search for things, since he had no trouble doing so.   D r e a m Focus  15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. More than enough prior deletions of similar articles have shown that these types of articles are not inherently notable, and must still be shown to be so. WilyD once again has only provided coverage of individual incidents, not any coverage of the topic of the article itself. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read any of them? The first one is a newspaper article titled "Uzbek-Bulgarian Relations Are Developing Dynamically", which provides clear examples of the relationship between the two nations.   D r e a m Focus  15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep the complete disregard of WilyD's 36 references is incredibly troubling. Ikip (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Locke9k. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I clicked on the first link provided and it clearly shows the relationship between the two nations, that what they discussing, they signing a human rights treaty together, and speaking of various opportunities of the two nations working together.   Honestly now.  Will the closing administrator please make a note of which editors say "delete" without actually checking the facts, and ignore their arbitrary "deletes" in other articles like this?   D r e a m Focus  15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep per WileyD. The first source he found is an in depth write up focussed specifically on the relationship, and from a reliable  secondary source  - its now been added to the article - and there are plenty more sources for further exspansion!  FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have pasted the sources identified by Wily D into the "External Links" section, and started adding titles etc. prior to creating sourced content in the main body of the article. Wily provided way too many sources. Surely no more than 20 independent sources discussing the subject are enough to establish notability? :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is now the outline of an article with enough content to justify keeping it - but a lot needs to be done to improve it. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WilyD. Obviously. --Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Aymathh2 has done a great job rescuing the article using WilyD's sources. You might think that visits and trade agreements are tedious and not worthy of an article, but what exactly do you imagine country relations should be? Does only countries going to war count? Fences and windows (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fences and windows. Europe22 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 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.