Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Marino–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   delete. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 21:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

San Marino–Uruguay relations

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

Unnotable; Prod contested Rcawsey (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete other than embassies I cannot find anything covering relations between these two countries, and since San Marino has a population of less than 30,000 I didn't expect to. Hut 8.5 08:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find anything other than embassies (which, incidentally, Uruguay lacks) to justify the notability of this relationship. Not that I was expecting to, since the entire San Marino population can fit into Coventry's stadium and still have room. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no assertion of this topic's notability in the context of history, only that it should be notable based on the title. The scant information found in this article can be merged to the two "Foreign relations of..." articles in the "See also" section to create more exhaustive and coherent articles there. -- BlueSquadron Raven  14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original prodder. There is no assertion of notability between the two countries. Tavix | Talk  22:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability whatsoever. Does anyone know how many of these strange foreign relations articles are online? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Too many. - Biruitorul Talk 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And growing -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - whimsical pairing with no particular notability demonstrated. - Biruitorul Talk 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Why was the prod removed? Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see significant content here yet. The article can be reconstructed when it becomes available. DGG (talk) 17:06, 9 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.