Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicaragua–South Ossetia 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   no consensus. One (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicaragua–South Ossetia relations

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

Contested prod. This information is entirely covered here, and there is no evidence of any notability in the relationship beyond the fact that recognition has been granted. Biruitorul Talk 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll have to disagree on the significance of the link cited (and I appreciate that you have cited it). What I draw from it is that Nicaragua is the only other nation in the world that recognizes South Ossetia or even expresses an intention to work with this pariah state.  That's enough to persuade me that there would be content for this article.   It's also important to look at the the author's other work.  Unlike the reckless matchmaking that Groubani/Plumoyr engages in, this is by someone who has taken the time to research articles in his field of interest, as opposed to cranking out stubs.  Mandsford (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's significant that Nicaragua granted recognition, but a) what else could possibly be said? (after all, a Central American country doesn't have a natural affinity for some mountain passes 7,600 miles away) and b) what do we gain by having the exact same information in two places? Couldn't we perhaps redirect? - Biruitorul Talk 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources in the article that establish this is a notable, non-trivial relationship and none findable by me.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Simply the fact that Nicaragua is unique among faraway nations in granting recognition is enough — we have sufficient reliable sources to verify its existence, and its distinctiveness means that the topic is going to be covered by more. No reason not to expect further developments, since South Ossetia's foreign ministry surely won't have much to do with only four other recognitions.  Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a) It's still not clear to me why we should cover the exact same information in two places. b) Our articles document what is and what has been, not that which we have no reason not to expect to happen. All sources on this subject speak exclusively of the recognition, which is documented in precisely the same form elsewhere. - Biruitorul Talk 16:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The only encyclopedic tidbit the article could possibly have is "N recognizes SO" (which I'm sure is covered/belongs on other pages). Building an article around that tidbit looks like an awful experiment in "what if I do this?" Dahn (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, this relationship is significant if only because Nicaragua is one of the only two (generally recognised independent) countries in the world to recognise South Ossetia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC).
 * As I've asked three times already: why should we cover the exact same information - the fact of recognition - in two places, here and here? - Biruitorul Talk 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that article is about the recognition and non-recognition of these two states in the wider sense, while this article is (or can be) about the particular relationship between these two entities. Completely different topics, so different articles are appropriate.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC).
 * But: a) so far, the entirety of their relations consists of recognition, a fact documented as much there as here; b) exact duplication of text is always discouraged. - Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A single event is insufficient evidence of notability. The act of recognition is such a single event. Martintg (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is no relationship, only recognition. Nicaragua speaks only of coordinating the possibility of direct diplomatic relations at some future date via Russia. This article is total synthesis bordering on a hoax. Martintg (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the latest addition to the article: "Whilst on a state visit to Russia in December 2008, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega expressed his desire to travel to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the future ". This article is about a possible future relationship, nothing exists at the moment. This article is build on some Wikipedian's speculative synthesis of future events that may or may not happen. Martintg (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per reasons given above. All relevant info is included in recognition of SO article. --Tone 06:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current relations are on the level of "Yeah, sure, whatever".  That does not notability make. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Given the history and political situation of both countries, this is an interesting and significant relationship, well referenced. A quick check shows a mass of reportage and commentary, including some like this and this that show broader ramifications (I may add them to the article). The relationship may be shallow in terms of real contact, trade, cooperation and so on, but it sure is noteworthy. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again the sources added is related to the recognition, which is already covered in the article International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, nothing about the relationship. The actual relationship itself (which this article is suppose to be about) is so shallow that it doesn't exist. Martintg (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The relationship is very new. As it stands, the article is mostly about the act of recognition and its initial impact. Given the controversy, that is significant. Presumably there will be further developments over the next few months and years, and the article will grow. But there is a lot more information than in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is a list-type article that cannot reasonably be expanded to include all the details of individual country stances on the issue, if only because of WP:SIZE guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that Biruitorul and others are doing an excellent job in weeding out, one-by-one, the random combinations that were generated by Groubani and Plumoyr (this is not one of those pages) in the last few months. In some cases, a further search of news and other sources shows that there is a significance in a particular combination, and this is one of those cases.  It is true that Daniel Ortega's gambit of recognizing South Ossetia could be covered in other articles-- not just "international recognition of a. and s.o.", but also "Nicaragua-Russia relations" and "Nicaragua-United States relations".  The act of recognition is, in my opinion, notable enough to merit an independent article.  I suppose that this could be retitled "Nicaraguan recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia", but I think the title is fine the way it is.  Regardless of the outcome of this debate, let's keep bringing these discussions to the table. Mandsford (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable for recognition – and per Estonia–Iceland relations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:00, 27 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.