Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Estonia relations (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Concerns for deletion appear to have been resolved. Notability of the subject appears to have been established. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Chile–Estonia relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

it's been 2 years since the last AfD of no consensus, and I notice there has been no article improvement. I checked to see if relations have grown http://www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/115 indeed they have not. The draft agreements are still draft. Neither country has resident ambassadors, level of trade is very small in terms of each country's economies. In 20 years of relations, neither leader has visited the other country, in fact the two leaders have never met. And arguing that a joint stamp issue adds to notable bilateral relations is really scraping the barrel. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (categories)
 * Delete No notable relations at all going on here. Trade is absolutely minuscule (even if, according to an observation, but no source, by someone at a previous AfD Chilean wine "dominate" Estonian market).  Its not even Estonia's largest trading partner in South America (that is Brazil) so that (very thin) notability is no longer relevant.  The only notable treaty is the visa free travel (though that can be covered in other articles). The rest are standard poli-speak of we agree to work together on such-and-such that every country has and signs with any other country when a minor diplomatic or political figure visits.  The fact that certain Chilean works have been translated into Estonian is also completely irrelevant here.  Ravendrop 09:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, lack of article improvement isn't a valid reason for deletion. A quick check of news sources see that relations have have grown, for example from a joint stamp issue to a chilean delegation visiting Estonia just last month to study the Estonian postal service. The claim that Chilean wine dominated the Estonian market is sourced to this news article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A single joint stamp issue does not mean that all Chile-Estonia relations are notable, nor does the fact that Estonians drink a lot of Chilean wine. These facts can be, at best, included on other pages, or, at worst, are simply trivial and not notable.Ravendrop 17:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There is really no significant news here other than that the Estonians seem to like Chilean wine, and it's a safe bet that they drink a pretty small part of that output. The only substantive source is a page from the Estonian foreign ministry (one of set for every country in the world, it seems) which says nothing remarkable and which states that Estonian trade with Chile is pretty small (95th export and 45th import partner). All the rest of this stuff is routine; I think this article could only be justified if one thought that articles on relations between any pair of countries were notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis that the article is sourced and bi-lateral international relations (though rarely exciting) have some level of inherent notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I'm making this !vote because the article has some information and it's sourced. If that wasn't the case then I'd !vote otherwise. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * neutral, for now There appears to be a huge structure of "X-Y relations" articles including a lot of others as improbable as this one. I have yet to find another one put up for AFD. I therefore have to assume that people have in general found the mere fact of such relations notable no matter how routine they are. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - well Referenced intersection of 2 notable topics. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * notable or trivial relations? LibStar (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Chile & Estonia are WP:notable. I am going to assume your refering to the 'Relations' between the two. the 'Relations' are Cited and can be assumed WP:Notable (especially to persons of the 2 nations). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Martin Tammsalu.  Diego  talk 00:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you really going to do wikilawyering in my face? Want a reason? Okay. Even though the Estonia-Chile relations have not been something extraordinary, personally I believe these "relations" articles are particularly helpful to find "historic coincidences" between two countries.  Diego  talk 21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * it would be better to state reasons in your own words in the first place. this is simple etiquette in an AfD. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that what is in the article currently is sufficient to establish notability for relations between these 2 countries. Davewild (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of improvement is not a reason for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * you have not provided a reason for keeping. lack of significant coverage of actual relations is a reason for deletion. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per user:Nug (Martin Tammsalu) for the wonderfully non-intuitive factual connections and sources he's found. This is truly one of those only-in-Wikipedia odd articles that's strange but true in the best way.  I was ready to support deletion until I actually read the sources.  Who knew? Bearian (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2011 (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.