Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germany–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   keep. WP:NOTAVOTE applies; the arguments in favor of retaining the article are stronger than those for deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany–Uruguay relations

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

WP:NOTDIR, article has nothing more to say than X's embassy is in Y. Also no references whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep When I saw that combination, the first thing that came to mind was the Graf Spee, which is still being excavated from the harbor outside Montevideo. Clearly, Groubani had never heard of it; not sure whether the nominator is acquainted with it either.  See also Battle of the River Plate.  Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to this but a directory listing of missions. A downed ship is hardly a basis for international relations. No coverage of the topic available. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I always like to assume good faith, but did you click any of the external links in the article to see the wealth of information listed there. AFD requires some due diligence before nomination. You are are not nominating the article as is. You are are nominating this topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The links are all government websites. Fails WP:RS. And I am endorsing the deletion of an article which fails to satisfactorily assert the notability, if any, of its stated topic. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  18:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of telling me it is in the Bible, cite me a chapter and verse. What specific policy prevents government websites from being used in Wikipedia as reliable sources? Every township article started as a dump of the census data from, shockingly, the US government website. It should also come as no surprise that the articles on National Parks all use the National Park Service as the source for the data in the infoboxes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS says, "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Hard facts like those found in article infoboxes are one thing, anything more open to subjective interpretation is quite another. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does it talk about government websites being unreliable? It talks about caution in using "primary sources" which would be the signed trade accords themselves, or say, video of two dignitaries shaking hands without any commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much like your "almanac" argument, I suspect you will twist interpretations any way you see fit. You wanted policy, I quoted it. Don't like it? Get concensus to change it. Good luck. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess citing something not relevant is better than citing nothing at all. But, where does your citation talk about government websites being unreliable? Your citation talks about caution in using "primary sources", it doesn't ban the use of government websites as unreliable. If it did we would have to retract all census data as unreliable, and all the economic data generated by the CIA, the World Bank, and IMF, which is used in every article. In economics these big three are the most reliable sources. We would also have to delete every photo taken by a government employee used in Wikipedia. I can see where using primary documents may lead to original research if an editor used the meeting of two ministers mentioned in a government website to declare "relations are good" or "relations are bad" between two countries, and that is what the text you cite explicitly refers to. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I want you to re-read that last sentence you wrote, many, many times because that's exactly what using a government website as a reference amounts to - a summary of the topic based on primary sources. Although, there's still nothing on the topic here to begin with. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard I agree with you that data from official sources are indeed reliable. as a side question, just wanted to know if you have ever voted delete for any of these bilateral AfDs? LibStar (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a strange question to ask someone. Many people don't vote delete unless they had time to do some research, and are absolutely certain there is a reason to.  When it doubt, let it be.  That's what I do.  I don't think he goes to every single one of these things and just posts Keep without a reason either.   D r e a m Focus  17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't been paying attention. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that that's an irrelevant question. Everyone is a volunteer, so chooses where to put in their effort. Some choose to put that effort into finding sources for articles that they think should be kept, and some concentrate on providing arguments why the unnotable ones should be deleted. For myself, I don't think I've given a "delete" opinion for any of these articles because the ones that I think should be deleted, such as the Comoros-Kosovo article that's up for deletion now, will get deleted quite happily without my input. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, in agreement with Mandsford's comments. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Going by the old saw that notability never expires, I'd add that there's more to the story than "a downed ship". During the 1930s, Uruguay was probably Hitler's best friend in South America.  Granted, there's a difference between what the article is and what the article could be, but this has more potential than most of that Groubani crap. Mandsford (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of the historical relationship--see the first cited ref. DGG (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move info into an inline citation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there was a lot of media coverage around the time of Battle of the River Plate. . recent relations are less significant now but in the context of the battle enough for an article. Also found that trade is significant from Uruguay's perspective Germany is the country’s principal trading partner in the EU. Germany ranks fifth overall among export countries LibStar (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford. The article is underdeveloped, but there is a nontrivial history between the countries. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, random X-Y article. Battle of La Plata has article of its own. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pages 331-337 of ISBN 9780836929935 are about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Covering what period? The book is copyright 1942. How extensive were relations before that to warrant keeping with information added from that source? -- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given you the link. Just follow it through to Google Books and you can check for yourself. Encyclopedias don't only cover events from the last few years. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee and Battle of the River Plate have their own articles; why duplicate content in inferior form here, just to satisfy some claim of an "Uruguay-Germany relationship"? (And in any case, these were far more a function of UK-Germany relations than of Uruguay-Germany relations.) Of course, the German government source can't be used because it breaches WP:PSTS. And Richard, have you ever read WP:LAYOUT? Note: "Very short [or very long] sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit its flow... The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text... Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."
 * Now, I fully agree Uruguay in World War II is a notable topic. So how about, instead of covering it in this dreadful "bilateral relations" venue, we do so at History of Uruguay (which as of now skips over from 1930 to 1950) or eventually at Uruguay in World War II? Because, you know, instead of forking what Uruguay and Germany were doing and what Uruguay and the US were doing (two inextricably linked topics), this format forces us to split up the content and lose any contextual relevance it might have had. But of course that'd be asking too much: thinking about structure and how articles fit in with one another is always less important than "rescuing" this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul Talk 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, lets delete first, then add the information to an imaginary article. It doesn't seem like a smart strategy to me personally. No rule says info can appear in only one article in Wikipedia. We have hundreds of articles that duplicate information on whoever the current president of the US is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, that entirely misses the point. The key is this: structuring the relevant information (about Uruguay in the pre-war and wartime period, let's say 1935-45) is far better done in one article that incorporates its positions vis-à-vis Germany and the United States (and the UK, and France, and Japan, if relevant). Splitting that up robs the topic of its contextual relevance and forces the information into a venue where it loses most of its meaning. And please, enough of these silly straw men. This article is not imaginary because some guy decided to mass-produce it, and Uruguay in World War II takes about two clicks to start. But it's far easier to "rescue" irrelevant stuff with more irrelevancies, than actually thinking about how to fit this material more properly into our existing structures. - Biruitorul Talk 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is so much information in the article now, how can anyone doubt its notability?  D r e a m Focus  17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite the point - the point is about structure and presentation; as I argued, it would serve us far better to structure this information so that it has contextual relevance, something glaringly lacking at present. - Biruitorul Talk 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does one have to be deleted to create another? I don't see the connection. It has to be the oddest rationale I have seen for deletion, and I have seen a lot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because again, it makes far more sense to talk about Uruguay in World War II (the salient feature of relations with Germany) in that context, not in this one. - Biruitorul Talk 05:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has expanded since nomination 1 and sources have been added. Uruguay's history is a neglected topic in this encyclopedia and expansion is welcome.  -- J mundo 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Claims of "systemic bias!" ought not override concerns about structuring information in logical fashion. Uruguay in World War II is indeed a notable and neglected topic. But how about, instead of covering it in this dreadful "bilateral relations" venue, we do so at History of Uruguay (which as of now skips over from 1930 to 1950) or eventually at Uruguay in World War II? Instead of forking into isolation what Uruguay and Germany were doing and what Uruguay and the US were doing (two inextricably linked topics), through this format that forces us to split up the content and lose any contextual relevance it might have had, why not cover the topic in unified, logical fashion? - Biruitorul Talk 05:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. This article has come a long way since it was nominated for AfD, but I still don't see any evidence that the topic of Germany-Uruguay relations meets threshold of WP:N, namely that it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". If no one is writing about this subject in detail, we shouldn't be either. Yilloslime T C  00:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Which facts in the article are original research? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article. For example WWII naval battles should contain all the notable information required. Knobbly (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe your argument is called "The slippery slope", and is not a valid argument. Wikipedia recognizes "notability" and "verifiability" as its pillars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Always good to hear a new voice in the argument, whether its for a keep or a delete. Don't worry, no precedent will be set regardless of how this particular debate comes out.  By way of background for Knobbly, and anyone else new to the discussion, there were some users (possibly just one user) who created literally hundreds of these articles about relations between random nation X and random nation Y over a period of about three months, before being halted.  The consensus has been that the merits of these have to be judged individually.  Needless to say, some are not nominated at all, such as in a case where the nations share a border.  For the rest of these, such as "Germany and Uruguay", a nomination is made and folks have at least seven days to speak up about whether there is anything notable.  In all, more of these get deleted than kept, simply because an obvious keep won't get nominated in the first place.  On the other hand, we've had quite a few unlikely-looking combinations that turned out to have some merit.  Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - well-sourced and interesting. There is probably a lot more to add. Germany has historically had strong ties (political, economic, migration etc.) with Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:39, 26 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.