Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Serbia 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile–Serbia relations

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

This article was prodded, deleted, and restored upon request. It should be deleted again. Many recent AfDs have found that the mere existence of bilateral relations is not notable; see for instance Articles for deletion/Latvia–Uruguay relations. The only significant diplomatic interaction between these two has been surrounding Kosovo, and that's amply covered here. Nothing else in the relationship exists that is notable (they don't even have embassies), so the article should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think there is or should be a specific rule on international relations articles. They are not inherently notable, else we need to have about 18,915+ articles talking about each country's relations. The approach taken by the Articles for deletion/Latvia–Uruguay relations article is to look at notability. The lack of embassy reciprocity (or perhaps because of the lack...U.S. and Cuba) is an important clue to the countrys' strategic relations and their importance. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - no indications of notability other than a single incident to which WP:NOT applies and can be covered elsewhere better. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Neither of them has a full embassy in the other country. I doubt the closure of an embassy - which would contravene Wp:NOT - can justify the notability of a relationship. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  11:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Merge what little there is to the two "Foreign relations of..." articles in "See also" section. -- BlueSquadron Raven  17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is partly vacuously tautological, and the remainder amounts to reporting that relations between the two nations are so insignificant that they don't bother keeping embassies in each other's countries! —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the same reason i PRODED this article...Yilloslime T C  23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which was? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They exchanged ambassadors (or, more accurately, Yugoslavia & Chile did), which demonstrates a serious commitment here. People, having an ambassador in a country means more than having a Foreign Service employee to catch the next plane somewhere & open an office! Besides, am I the only person who is intrigued by the fact that a self-described Socialist/Communist country & a notorious right-wing junta maintained formal diplomatic relations? -- llywrch (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability demonstrated via reliable, independent sources on this topic. A harmful content fork (if anything encyclopedic develops in future in this non-notable bilateral relationship) from Foreign relations of Chile and Foreign relations of Serbia.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:49, 10 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.