Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Luxembourg 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile-Luxembourg relations

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

Another bilateral "relationship" that has never received any significant, independent, non-trivial coverage in any reliable sources. Why? Because according to this stub, neither country has a full embassy in the other and diplomatic contacts are slight to non-existent. One of the two sources in the article at the moment is that the Luxembourg 2008 census found that 60 Chileans were living in Luxembourg, which gives a feel for the extent and grandeur of the two nation's ties. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts: I do not think that it should be deleted. It has some sources in it, and yes, the Chileans living in Luxembourg is a good idea to keep it there. But i will work on the article to improve it. Russian Luxembourger (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. The Ogre (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Luxembourg may be small, but even for its population of 480,000, 60 barely registers. Certainly no indication these people are notable, and their relations are basically just pro forma, so delete. - Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is about non-resident ( or non-existent) ambassadors in each country, with the rest outlining private companies or residents with no obvious connection to either government. Non-notable. -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If there are over 900 countries, and thousands of former countries, there could be literally millions of trivial articles stating that two countries have or had ambassadors or consuls or were represented by some other country's ambassador. The mere fact that two countries exist or once existed 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, satisfying notability? The mere fact that there is an "honorary consul" is insufficient to justify an article, since Wikipedia is not a directory.Edison (talk) 16:38, 15 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.