Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicaragua–Switzerland 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.  Sandstein  19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicaragua–Switzerland relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG for lack of third party coverage of relations. Most of the article comes from 1 source. https://www.eda.admin.ch/countries/nicaragua/en/home/switzerland-and/bilateral-relations.html LibStar (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, not even an embassy. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The relationship between these two countries doesn't seem to be one of the most significant bilateral relationships for either of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, no actual rationale for deletion has been provided, and the article clearly fulfills multiple encyclopedic functions. In addition, to respond to this boilerplate nom in the spirit in which it was posted, I will once again note that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head.  The GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable", whether or not a handful of AfD habitués deem it "significant") because it makes far more sense to assign encyclopedic information about Nicaragua-Switzerland relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Nicaragua and Switzerland articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * rationale is it fails WP:GNG for lack of third party sources. Have you actually found any sources to back your vote? LibStar (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was too wordy, so let me try again. The guideline you cite does not support your claim. AfD is not cleanup. If you want to permanently erase the hard work of other editors, you need to make a better case than this.  -- Visviva (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You probably oppose deletion of any article. WP:HARDWORK is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I have made an excellent case for delete with everyone but you supporting delete. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, (at least) based on my research, such topic (relationship between two mentioned countries) cannot be in a remarkable/acceptable degree of importance to have an independent page, and does't have sufficient independent sources to support it ... presumably, at most it might can be included/merged into other relevant pages. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This article offers intriguing evidence that the relationship is notable.--TM 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed link.--TM 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete We will definitely not find enough reliable sources on this subject to fill out an entire article. Regardless of GNG criteria, it would be pointless to try to make an article with no significant sources dealing with it. Talrolande (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2020 (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.