Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary–Peru 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 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hungary–Peru relations

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

another random country relationship, non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - random, no notability shown by reliable sources, the usual. - Biruitorul Talk 05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply not notable on the world stage. -- BlueSquadron Raven  05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's the usual deal here: no embassies, little trade and/or investments, no presidential/royal/whatever visits and no notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  09:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N. No inherent notability for the fact that two random countries do or do not exchange ambassadors. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information. Edison (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, at minimum, all such articles where there are no proper embassies and no other info. Rd232 talk 22:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I have my doubts on this, unless someone can suggest some actual significant content. DGG (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Unfortunately, I can't find a translated version of this | "El Perú y Hungría establecieron relaciones diplomáticas el 16 de abril de 1969..." but there's more than the usual amount of detail for one to write an article about relations between the two nations. There's also this | Peruvian president agrees to repay country's debts to Hungary (1998).  Enough?  Perhaps. Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep meets the usual standard for inclusion. See - anyways, I don't see what makes this such an unusual case that it needs to be treated in an exceptional way. Wily D  13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are either primary sources ("we consider our relations important"), or random bits of news/trivia out of which an article could never be written - and in any case, what you are proposing is in breach of WP:SYNTH. You are taking these disparate news stories and claiming they, together, form evidence of a notable relationship. But that's not permitted: you need reliable secondary sources detailing the relationship as such for this to qualify as an encyclopedic topic. - Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - As a response to Biruitorul's comment above, combining sources into one article is not prohibited per se; rather, it is synthesis that is not allowed. Using multiple sources to establish notability is not synthesis, but in fact required. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:54, 24 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.