Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay 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 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Croatia–Uruguay relations

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

There isn't even a Croatian embassy in Uruguay. What, what is notable about an embassy anyway? Are we going to have articles for relations between every country in the world? There's nothing to say here. This and most other similar short articles should be deleted. Or merged, whatever. Pick-a-chew (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean seriously, there are many entities - people, companies and ideas - that are much, much bigger and significant than tiny embassies between small countries, and yet these do not have Wikipedia articles.--Pick-a-chew (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Pick-a-chew (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C  15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - There's nothing to confer notability here. The lack of embassies in other countries doesn't exactly help that. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  14:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Prior precedent is that if the countries don't even have embassies then the article should be deleted. Also, I've looked for independent, secondary sources that discuss this topic in a non-trivial way, and I've not been able to find anything.Yilloslime T C  15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete absent a showing of some type of bilateral agreements between these two countries. It's not helpful that Croatia has no embassy in Uruguay, and that Uruguay has no embassy in Croatia. Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Croatia, Template:Foreign relations of Uruguay, Category:Bilateral relations of Croatia, and Category:Bilateral relations of Uruguay are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted.  I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's sort of an other stuff exists argument. Maybe those templates shouldn't exist.  Maybe most of the articles linked to from the templates shouldn't exist.  I definitely don't think we should have a "Nation–Nation relations" article for every combination of countries, simply because diplomatic relations don't exist between all countries, and where diplomatic relations exist, they are not automatically notable.  And even after showing notability, we actually need sufficient verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, otherwise the info should be merged somewhere else, like "Foreign relations of NATION". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would add that anybody can make a template, and that it's not uncommon for someone to create an empty glass and then say "we need to fill this empty glass". The existence of a template for "Foreign relations of ______" should not be viewed as an endorsement of a particular set of articles.  A template only means that one editor made a template. Mandsford (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - strong precedent indicates that mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. - Biruitorul Talk 23:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - strong precedent shows almost every bilateral pairing of countries have notable relations. Not speaking Spanish or Croatian/Serbo-Croatian/Serbo-Croati-Bosniac/whatever, it's harder to get the usual cornucopia of sources for such things, is probably best,  also gets in there.  Still no reason to try and hold these articles to a much higher standard than WP:N. Wily D  15:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The second source says nothing about Uruguay; the first, six words about how the two signed a "memorandum of understanding", the significance or notability of which we have no idea about. - Biruitorul Talk 16:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure we do. It's difficult to communicate with you when you aren't aware of standards, precedent and jargon.  Please avoid using the word "notable", which carries special connotations, that make your statements confusing. Wily D  16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First, you are not to tell me what words to use or not to use (unless they breach WP:CIV or WP:NPA). Second, WP:N mandates significant coverage, which is not met by a six-word mention. - Biruitorul Talk 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. -- BlueSquadron Raven  23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, why are all these being nominated for deletion when clearly the only problem is they are underdeveloped? :( -- can  dle &bull; wicke  23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Part of a series of nearly contentless articles made by . One would think that the fact that all of them have been prodded or AFDed would deter Ms. T. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Foreign relations of Croatia and Foreign relations of Uruguay because there's nothing in the article to distinguish it from the other 40,000 possible pairs of countries. Jwray (talk) 09:10, 7 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.