Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozambique–Spain 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. There is clear consensus that this relationship is notable, as with most others in this theme nominated in a short span of time Nosebagbear (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Mozambique–Spain relations

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Only mentions regular matters that can be seen between most countries. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly valid topic. Geschichte (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, WP:BORING isn't a valid deletion rationale. At the very least, it's not clear whether the nominator is questioning the notability of the article. Pilaz (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pilaz The rationale is that the relations between these nations are just standard relations that you could expect any 2 random UN nations to have. If this article exist, there might as well be thousands of other detailing the relations of every country with every country, which would obviously be an insane idea. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GDBN: The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination with a policy-based rationale. Pilaz (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: the slippery slope argument is invalidized by numerous relations pages having been deleted in the last month. There is no ongoing effort to couple every country in the world, and in this particular case Philosophy2 also grossly misrepresents the character of the relations between Mozambique and Spain.
 * Wikipedia should definitely have more relations pages, but then again the right relations pages. Look at Template:Foreign relations of Cameroon, for instance. The notion that Cameroon has relations only to 1 other African country is ridiculous, and a substantial effort should be undertaken to add more. Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even most of those articles don't pass the General notability guideline. The only relations pages that should exist are those where the relations have been established and have a history. 2 examples are United Kingdom–United States relations and Greek–Turkish relations. However, if relations don't go past some embassies and a few foreign visits, there is no point on having an entire article about them. Philosophy2 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. It only took three messages from the nominator to bless us with a policy-based rationale, so here are my WP:THREE: a "longread" article that discusses Spain-Mozambique relations, 40 years of relations and one accord signed on the occasion, from one of Spain's newspapers of record , and an article discussing how and why the United States wanted to see deeper relations between Spain and Mozambique . There have been plenty of state visits from Mozambique heads of state to Spain, several cooperation programs in health and development aid, and even in defense training, notwithstanding the brief diplomatic spats that Spain and Mozambique have had over the years. Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The formulation of the single policy-based deletion rationale (GNG) coming from the nominator seems to be incredibly prejudiced ("The only relations pages that should exist" (I suppose referring to abiding to GNG) "are those where the relations have been established and have a history. 2 examples are United Kingdom–United States relations and Greek–Turkish relations" and it reads rather as thinly veiled WP:BORING and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article can be improved, but I think that a stub to start-class article about the topic relying on third-party sources is possible, despite still not being to the nominator's liking. If the nominator's idea was to turn the AfD system into a workshop for article improving, they should reduce the frequency of nominations.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have said many times that the article does not need to be improved. There is no problem within the article concerning how it is written or structured. The actual problem is the fact that the existence of the article is a violation of the notability policy. Philosophy2 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As WP:GNG indicates, "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article has been updated with several citations from reliable sources, such as Spain's major news outlets. In my view, they show that Mozambique-Spain relations meet our notability guidelines. Upon re-reading the article and consulting the sources, do you disagree with my assessment with respect to WP:GNG? If so, why? Pilaz (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2021 (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.