Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan–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 merge to Foreign relations of Pakistan. or Foreign relations of Uruguay as appropriate. SpinningSpark 07:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan–Uruguay relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. The relations are not subject to significant indepth coverage. No embassies, no evidence of significant trade or migration or visits by leaders. Yes there is one agreement with mercosur but that is a multilateral not bilateral agreement. The article cites a chamber of commerce but it is unclear that it exists from the source provided. Some chambers of commerce exist in name only, rather than actively work. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: Most of what I think is already said but it still has basically no evidence of any relations whatsoever. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (inform)  @ 21:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, I did some expansion of the article. It is clear that commercial links between Pakistan and Uruguay are limited, but Uruguay is involved in the Kashmir issue since 1948. --Soman (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - yet another in a long line of Random country - Random country relations articles. The difference, though, is that one seems to be (completely by accident and without the knowledge of the creator) notable. Hosting a significant diplomatic conference and long-term involvement in otherwise unrelated conflicts is probably enough. I'm not 100% convinced but its better than 90% of the others.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't, for example, be opposed to a merge to Foreign relations of Uruguay as most of the issues covered don't relate just to Pakistan but to the region in general, within which Pakistan is a significant player. That may actually be a better option and would allow us to include (somewhere far more relevant) Soman's excellent work.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - this is below what IMHO we should have as notable. There have never been full ambassadors; there is no evidence of substantial trade or immigration; interactions between the governments are almost entirely trilateral. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bearian, your thoughts on a merge solution?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge When the re are not even separate ambassadors, there is insufficient foreign relations. I have consistently !voted keep for most articles of this sort, but I regard that status as an indication that neither country thinks the other particularly important to its own concerns.  DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge; not seeing the notability here, especially given that they don't even have ambassador-level relations. Neutralitytalk 03:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Foreign relations of Pakistan and Foreign relations of Uruguay.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:04, 19 January 2015 (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.