Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Israel 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, defaults to Keep. Nakon 05:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile–Israel relations

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

There is no bilateral relationship between these two countries that rises to the state of encyclopedically notable. That is to say, there are no independent, reliable sources that discuss this relationship (as a topic) in anything beyond non-trivial depth. The stub as it stands currently is completely unsourced to boot. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete non-notable. The Ogre (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - might be notable ( and hint at something), but I'd like if it was shown something substantive could be written up on the relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 15:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough (or, likely, at all) to warrant its own article on the topic. -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per nom, I find it difficult to believe that there are "no" reliable sources that discuss Chile-Israel relations. I would say that there definitely are reliable sources, and the nominator simply hasn't read them.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep C'mon guys, it took me 10 min to reference the entire article and add a little meat. Granted the Israeli embassy's webpage is in Spanish (at least the parts with real content), Google's translator has gotten really good lately, so this was an easy one to ref and add some content. I'd ask all opposers to see the updated article now that it has been cleaned up. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * C'mon the "meat" was all primary Israeli government press releases that noted 1. Golda once went to chile. 2. A chilean leader went to israel once too. So please don't hold that up as having accomplished much in 10 minutes.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that this is no lost cause and you have to give an article time so it can grow. Not all sources must be independent, but when there are independent sources, they can and should be used. But for the time being, the article has been expanded in a minor way and fully sourced. What does it hurt to leave it? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And all I'm saying is: The article has been here for over 3 months without a single source (unreliable or reliable -- nada, zip, kosong, kurang, etc...) that might possibly establish notability. You, as a concerned citizen who for some reason wants this article retained, spends time on the matter -- and comes up with a couple of unreliable sources. So, as far as i'm concerned, your efforts so far strengthen support for deletion. That is, your effort only yielded sources that kind of define "epic fail" when it comes to policy. So if you meant something else and you care about policy here, why'd ya bring them up, bra? (sticking with the whole "c'mon" theme). Unsourced material that can provide the pier pilings on which mendacious, encyclopedia-destroying claims can grow are the devil. Ask all major world religions but the Jains (whimps). The rest of them agree with me.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never checked the age, but three months tells me that nobody has a problem with the article, and it is a legitimate part of Template:Foreign relations of Israel so many things link to the article (it seems the template is waiting for the creation of more articles to get rid of red links). The sources are reliable, since they are official sources (and since they corroborate each other). And besides, link [1] above, from Biruitorul is extremely useful and will most likely end up being used for the article eventually, especially after this discussion. My original aim was just to reference everything, making the last part of this nom moot. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Woah, woah, what's the deal? Why did you remove my references? I reverted your move because it wasn't warranted but I don't want to start a fight with you. These are reliable sources and I think you're being far too biased on this. You nom'ed this for deletion, meaning you really shouldn't remove the refs; it's essentially a conflict of interest and makes your case stronger for illegitimate reasons. Anybody that went to look at the article to !vote in this discussion would see at as it was before I added useful content. This is poor practice, IMHO, and I think you should stop. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The mere fact that two countries exist or once existed and had ambassadors or consuls or representation through a third country does not mean that we need articles such as this. Did they form alliances, or become major trading partners, or go to war, or anything else which would have caused there to be significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources about their "relations" satisfying notability?  Wikipedia is not a directory. The references are not independent, being the websites of the two countries. Edison (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In response, I don't feel I have to now go scurrying through CIA pdfs, UN trade agreements, NGO publications and economics papers looking for data about Chile and Israel just because someone asks about it and their opinion matters in a deletion discussion. Assuming good faith, one expects that the material in question is there and will be supplied to the article as time permits; it takes time to edit the Wiki, it's not done on demand, Rome wasn't built in a day.  That goes for all the other bilateral articles up for deletion now.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the first source provided by Biruitorul is of high quality and provides details on a close Chile-Israel relationship during the Pinochet years.--Aldux (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Further Comment Beit-Hallahmi's book leaves a full section regarding Chile-Israel relations in the 1970s and 1980s, and adds in the section (pages 98-101) quite a number of sources. But if we want additions, always from Google books, several passages here ; more recent, if not so important .--Aldux (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. Plus the title is too vague (but that's a separate issue, and I understand that.)  JBsupreme (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep since I'm going to go with Biruitorul's first sources also--I believe this could be part of a more substantial article. B., I appreciate your effort here. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Israel is one of those countries (like the US, China or Russia) where bilateral relations are more often than not significant, and it does seem they worked pretty closely during Pinochet's rule. The similar case, Israel–South Africa relations, has quite a long article to it (though the parts in the first half that read like a newspaper article definitely need reworking). - Biruitorul Talk 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems inherently notable as a topic, as the two countries do have diplomatic relations. Doesn't appear to have original research in its current state. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Biruitorul found 2 really nice sources, definitely a keeper. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep nominators claim "There is no bilateral relationship between these two countries that rises to the state of encyclopedically notable." is false, as per editor above "C'mon guys, it took me 10 min to reference the entire article and add a little meat." Ikip (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for this particular article there are very obviously sources.  Biruitorul's argument that most or all israel-X articles will have usable material seems correct to me also.  DGG (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided by Aldux above. Also keep as inherently notable, for the same reason we keep Blofeld's village stub articles: from time to time people will find interesting information to add, and if the stub is there, the person is more likely to go to the trouble of adding the information to Wikipedia. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, there is a discussion about a general policy on such articles. --Tone 21:27, 17 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.