Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Whatever 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   speedy keep. Speedy keep all and nominate one by one, as one can not judge each of the articles on their merits in such a group nomination. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Barbados–Chile_relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable foreign relations. No wars, exceptional events, common origins, non-notable inmigracy data that has nothing to do with foreign relationships (not refugees from wars, no notable reasons to choose that country, no political refugees from that country) etc. Only embassies, embassors, some diplomatic events and awards, belonging to the same associations in non-notable manners. Info already covered more efficiently by Foreign relations of Chile, Chilean diplomatic missions and List of diplomatic missions in Chile. Part of a series of short articles created by a few users. The article list is taken from Template:Foreign_relations_of_Chile.


 * Articles for deletion/Chile-Colombia relations
 * Articles_for_deletion/Luxembourg–Serbia_relations
 * Articles_for_deletion/Peru–Romania_relations
 * Articles_for_deletion/Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland
 * Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Moldova_relations


 * Americas
 * Argentina–Chile relations neighbour countries, long history of disputes and agreements
 * Barbados–Chile relations
 * Bolivia–Chile relations couple of wars, chile has a corridor to the sea that is claimed by bolivia
 * Brazil–Chile relations
 * Canada–Chile relations
 * Chile-Colombia relations already deleted by SNOW at Articles for deletion/Chile-Colombia relations
 * Chile-Haiti relations
 * Chile–Mexico relations see my comment below
 * Chile-Paraguay relations
 * Chile–Peru relations neighbours, border wars since the Inca empire
 * Chile–Uruguay relations
 * Chile – United States relations very fluffed entry, needs to be expanded with how US's support to Pinochet affected its later relationship


 * Asia
 * Chile–Israel relations


 * Europe
 * Armenia–Chile relations
 * Austria–Chile relations merge and redirect, it has one notable fact
 * Bulgaria–Chile relations
 * Chile–Croatia relations
 * Chile–Cyprus relations already deleted by SNOW at Articles for deletion/Chile–Cyprus relations
 * Chile–Estonia relations already nominated Articles_for_deletion/Chile–Estonia_relations
 * Chile–Finland relations
 * Chilean-Greek_relations
 * Chile–Hungary relations
 * Chile–Ireland relations merge and redirect, it has some notable stuff
 * Chile–Italy relations
 * Chile-Luxembourg relations
 * Chile–Malta relations
 * Chile–Romania relations
 * Chile–Russia relations
 * Chile–Serbia relations
 * >Chile–Turkey relations the article is well cited and has important information (other than embassy location) about bthe relations of both countries.
 * Chile–Ukraine relations


 * Oceania
 * Australia–Chile relations a good bunch of trade agreements, fishing agreements for the South Pacific and stuff, also both states are big exporters of farm products so they have common lobbying interests in the international market

Some of the articles were already labelled with PRODs by other users, because they felt that they had no notability. Enric Naval (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not yet looked enough at most of these, but strong keep on Chile – United States relations. The United States was a major role in the 1973 coup which led to the downing of Salvador Allende and the rise of Augusto Pinochet, and that event has affected their relationship for a long time. Also, the nomination only mentioned the AFDs for bilateral pairs which were deleted, to be fair you should mention Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Mongolia_relations which ended with a keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I stroke out the Chile-US one.
 * I wasn't aware of the Canada-Mongoliaone. The first commenter cited some sources for notability, like Canada being the second largest investor in Mongolia. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These policies should be well discussed and established. E.g. Should an article be up for deletion if there's no High Commission/Embassy etc.  Because in that case much of the US-Caribbean relations could be up for deleition too since the U.S. only has a few embassies in the Caribbean region. E.g. Or like if there's a trade deal in place or not. etc.  Whether the leaders have visited one another. etc. A global rules base should be established on what forms of _whatever_-_whatever_ relations should be entertained. CaribDigita (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Biggest problem I see is that they fail the general notability guide in the first place, by not having third-party independient sources talking about those relationships, so they wouldn't qualify for an independient article in the very first place, and should have never been splitted out from their mother articles in the first place. (the "mother articles" being Foreign relations of Chile, Chilean diplomatic missions and List of diplomatic missions in Chile) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To my mind government sources have widely been accepted as being credible across Wikipedia. If not, there are many articles on Wikipedia that would need to have sources from Governments removed or complimented if they aren't credible sources.  E.g. Almost the entire basis of the North American Union being called just a "theory" is that the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico have put out statements saying there are no movements by them towards a North American Union. Without their statement as a source, then what is to say that the North American Union is just a theory? CaribDigita (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think you are confusing notability with verifiability. Government sources a great (and usually very appropriate) for establishing facts, and for that reason they get cited all the time. But notability is different. The main question is not, "Are these sources creditable," but rather, "Has this topic been discussed to a significant degree outside of wikipedia and by sources other than those close to the topic?" If the answer to the later is "no," then wikipedia should not have a stand alone article on the topic. (The topic could still be covered by wikipedia somerwhere, just not in a stand alone article.) So in a nutshell, yes government sources are widely accepted as credible across wikipedia, but doesn't mean that they can be used to establish the notability of a topic. Yilloslime T C  15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Chile–Italy,Greece and Russia relations too.
 * errr, this is because of the inmigrants? Those are already covered by Greeks in Chile, Italian Chilean and Russians in Chile. These are articles in foreign relationships, not in inmigracy. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep all and nominate one by one, as one can not judge each of the articles on their merits in such a group nomination. Take for example, Australia-Chile relations, where there is a free trade agreement in place (this is notable), and I see numerous sources going back to early 1900s at, and also Australian investments in Chilean copper under Pinochet (who was the magnate who was involved here?). And Russia-Chile relations, there's some 7,000 news results, and funnily enough only 3 days ago it was announced there would be a state visit by Chilean president to Russia to further expand ties. This nomination should be kept in its entireity, because the way in which it has been done is potentially disruptive as we are unable to judge each article on its merits. I have to question why many articles were nominated, and then immediately stricken (by the nom?). AfD is not a "requests for expansion". Bring them back one by one. --Russavia Dialogue 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No way. Most of those articles are simply without merit, many have been already been proded, and several AfDs have already been closed by SNOW. There is precedent for mass AfD at Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland (read the reasoning of the closing admin) and the time can be extended if there are unresolved issues.


 * Also, don't use google searches as proof (the ones you are using have a lot of false positives). Make a bit of legwork and point at specific sources, that's what will save a specific article. Do it like this:
 * for Chile-Australia: "[the Minister of Chile, in a 1947 address to the Victoria League (a local bussinessmen association?), referred to] the relations that existed between Australia and Chile during the past century, particularly during the gold rush years" (this source actually says that there was little contact between the two countries even during the gold rush, and not much inmmigracy pages 195-197) and talks about a bilateral trade agreement, a "regional Fisheries Management Organisation for the South Pacific" and some other stuff like "Australia had worked closely with Chile in pushing the case for freeing up agricultural trade."


 * For Chile-Russia I can only find the break of diplomatic ties in 1947 in WWII, which should be covered in the history articles, and some meetings, but the sort of meetings that are not notable because they get done with any visiting countrty, and the usual declarations of friendship and goodwill. Point at specific notable stuff. And you don't have to convince me, you have to convince other commenters and also convince the admin who will close this discussion.


 * (and sorry if I came out too harsh) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And did you bother to check in Russian or Spanish? Also, one who has only been able to find that diplomatic relations were broken off in 1947 (after WWII btw), obviously has not done a search, and dare I say it lacks a knowledge of general world history (at least when this topic is concerned); given the Allende link. Anyway, I've established basic notability for that article. --Russavia Dialogue 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Barbados–Chile
Barbados outlines Chile as one of its principle diplomatic relations in the neighbouring Latin American region.


 * See here and select "Barbados & Latin America" then "Go".

It states. "Though Barbados' only diplomatic representation in the Latin America region at the moment is through its embassy in Caracas, expansion of diplomatic and consular representation is being given serious consideration by the Ministry. Currently, however, within the Latin America region, Barbados' principal relationships are with: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela" under your suggestion the only notable tie with Latin America would be Venezuela. I have no problem with just working on that article if all the rest would be regularly up for deletion though. I strongly look forward to hearing what the upcoming consensus is.

CARICOM and Chile are considering a the creation of a free trade deal. "CARICOM/Chile Relations"

CaribDigita (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh, I see all of that as diplomatic fluff, florid statements in documents that get published only in embassy pages, or in newspaper articles that parrot mindlessly whatever fluff politicians spout out when visiting another country. You can't trust what those documents say because you can't distinguish the real notable stuff from the exaggerations. Those sources are not independient, not third-party, not reliable.


 * I would only keep articles with strongly sources, and those sources showing notable stuff like, dunno, bitter border wars, long-standing mutual economical agreements that have important long term effects in their economies, strong cultural ties that influence their foreign relationships, old wars that still influence the current public opinion about the other country. Anything less notable than that is not enough to write a good solid article, will only be a list of trivia and indiscriminate info (WP:IINFO), and can be covered on the main articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Chile–Mexico relations
(comment moved from nomination) Chile and Mexico has a long history of diplotic relations, migration and trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentren (talk • contribs) 07:53, 31 March 2009
 * Please provide sources for these relationships, or simply explain what the relationships are so we can search for sources. The articles Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Chile don't mention any of that. (by the way, thanks for striking the Chile-Turkey one, I had missed the reference to the statues)


 * P.D.: I found some myself The agreement of economic complementation between Mexico andChile, a 3 year old economic cooperation treaty, Treaty of free commerce between Chile and Mexico 1999, Chile-Mexico: two transitions front to front --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  —J.Mundo (talk) 20:12, 31 March 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.