Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Greece 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Colombia–Greece relations

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

I've done searches for all these pairs; it seems Greek relations with Latin America are, in general, routine and have not been the subject of significant coverage, either in news articles or books. The presence of embassies is already noted at Diplomatic missions of Greece (and the equivalent pages). Where noteworthy, the Greek diasporas already have pages: Greeks in Argentina, Greeks in Brazil, Greek Mexican. Other than that, there isn't much to see here. If someone does find significant coverage for one or more of these pairings, I'll be glad to strike them out as that happens. Biruitorul Talk 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)




 * Question Biruitorul, of the several pairing articles you have put up for deletion, have you ever struck an entry or closed any deletion debate on these country pairings which you have opened? Ikip (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, and I will be happy to strike pairings if and when significant coverage is found. - Biruitorul Talk 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it does, if the "significant coverage" bar is completly unattainable. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unless we throw WP:GNG out the window, deletion (or at best merging (not that there's much to merge) or redirecting) is the solution. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If any AFD shows that no source will ever be considered "significant coverage" by Biruitorul it is this response to the 36 references provided by User:WilyD at Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations. There are no amount of refences which will ever be signifigant enough for Biruitorul. 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not on the contributor. No independent significant coverage has been demonstrated, and no amount of filibustering will change that. - Biruitorul Talk 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have brought it up, unless you would stated what you did in the last sentence. I suggest striking it, since there is no amount of sources which will be signifigant enough. thanks. Ikip (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, you've done more than enough smear campaigning and assuming bad faith around here, find a rational argument or be quiet. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations task force deletions. –  Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep all - Two-way resident ambassadors and embassies, a total of 11 embassies. (Exception: Colombia is represented in Greece through its embassy in Rome.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per petri Krohn. Ikip (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all there is a strong predicent against these type of bundled articles, besides Petri Krohn has it right with his rationle. Tavix | Talk  23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the embassies' presence is recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and the equivalent articles. So we already have that information, it's not significant coverage, and plenty of pairings even with embassies have been deleted (Articles for deletion/Poland–Uruguay relations comes to mind). We're still waiting for significant coverage, which would actually validate any of these. And Tavix, surely a full week is enough for anyone to investigate just six articles. - Biruitorul Talk 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember the train wreck last time these kind of lists were bundled? Even if someone thinks that all but one should be deleted it really complicates things. I know people can investigate six articles in a week, but that is besides the point; usually some are more notable than others. Tavix | Talk  23:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Colombia–Romania relations worked just fine. Look, I understand why bundles of 20 might be too much to stomach, or why bundles of half a dozen involving completely disparate countries may be a problem, but I really don't think it's that hard to assess the notability of the relations of Greece (population 11 million) with 6 countries on the opposite side of the world, with which it has very little in common. I've said why the embassy argument is a red herring; the lack of significant coverage (unless that turns up) simply means we should delete these. - Biruitorul Talk 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I normally support your nominations, but I feel like the bilateral relational articles need individual nominations, regardless of what countries they are. Tavix | Talk  02:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep of Argentine and Brazilian articles - many high-level contacts, enough for my standards. The others are a mere keep. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to have any independent sources to validate any of these assertions, or does WP:GNG get ignored yet again? - Biruitorul Talk 00:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: this discussion is now solely for Colombia-Greece; the other pairs have their own AfDs. - Biruitorul Talk 06:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until someone who knows the languages searches carefully in appropriate online are print sources for every individual pair, and confirms that additional material cannot be located. The probability of finding something goes up with the amount of attention given. DGG (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having embassies would imply that other sources do exist - proof of an extensive effort to find sources failing is needed, imo.YobMod 10:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of secondary sources, references and content after a year of this article being here is insufficient for this? -- Blue Squadron  Raven  23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Imo, yes. Many of these articles are created in a stub-creation-spree, so the lack of citations is usually due to no-one having done a good enough search. As most of the sources can be assumed to be in non-English languages, a google search is not sufficient; unless Greek editor makes a concerted effort to find sources and fails, i think the sources are to be found, and just need time.YobMod 08:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No secondary sources, no referenced content, text that fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:RS and WP:GNG. Just not notable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  --Yannismarou (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, excellent almanac type entry. Notability isn't required in almanac entries, just facts and figures.
 * Actually, all our articles should at least have the potential for FA status, which an entry lacking multiple reliable sources clearly can't meet. - Biruitorul Talk 04:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many almanac entries for towns in Wikipedia are no more than a zip code and few sentences of directory-like data from the census. That is the nature of almanac and gazetteer entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if we concede towns are inherently notable, there's been no such consensus for bilateral relations, and as I've pointed out before, the relevant information is already at Diplomatic missions of Greece (and similar lists). - Biruitorul Talk 05:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A shoddy start but the subject itself is notable. These are two major world countries just needs a lot of work.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles. PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:39, 11 May 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.