Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbia–Venezuela relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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 based on additional references and citations added during the duration of the AFD. However, I encourage those interested to continue finding ways to improve the article further. (non-admin closure) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbia–Venezuela relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the previous consensus was for redirect but since someone didn't like that and reverted the redirect I'm putting this up for deletion, since I believe consensus may be found over 3 years down the track since the last AfD. the article uses WP:SYNTH by including Venezuela's comments on Kosovo which should go in Kosovo–Venezuela relations. I can find no evidence of significant coverage of relations. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Encyclopedic topic. The countries maintain embassies with one another and have signed bilateral treaties. Carrite (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * wrong on two accounts, Serbia has no embassy in Venezuela. a treaty is a binding legal instrument and much stronger than a cooperation agreement. See my note on bilateral agreements. they have merely signed cooperation agreements. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this link to a self-written note has any impact on the fact that the Serbia profundiza relaciones con Venezuela published in the Correo del Orinoco 7 July 2010 confirms that relations are more notable than just ambassadors exchanging name cards. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral - the article is poorly written. But the subject is noteworthy. Mark the page for improvement and keep it. If it doesn't get improved, then re-consider for deletion down the road. Kenenjaye Saidykahn (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject is notable, and article will be fixed, this is not reason for delete. I will see for some more sources... Also, Kosovo situation is relevant reason for bilateral article information. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. You have 6 days to find sources. LibStar (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources added, subject is more then referenced. I also think that this is obious keep... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 00:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * there are 4 sources. 2 of them relate to International recognition of Kosovo, one of them is primary from Serbian government, so we have one source. clearly fails WP:GNG. have you actually tried to look for sources? LibStar (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly is notable per common sense, and LibStar your wikt:ultimatum "You have 6 days to find sources" comment is inappropriate. Did you search in Spanish and Serbian sources" "Serbia. Venezuela. relaciones diplomáticas" or Србија. Венецуела. "дипломатски односи" before making this AfD? I could be wrong but based on those that I have seen I hope this series of AfDs to delete diplomatic relations stubs does in fact have community support and is not WP:POINTY. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "notable per common sense" is not a reason for deletion keep. how is it pointy? no significant coverage means fails WP:GNG. over 100 articles have been deleted. you have failed to provide any sources. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * nothing in my search in Spanish, all the coverage is multilateral. a mere 4 hits in Serbian excluding the WP article that comes up. and an article like this is actually about relations with Croatia. prove me wrong In ictu oculi and show me some sources. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you mnean "notable per common sense" is not a reason for non-deletion. Well actually it is, common sense would indicate that two sizeable nations having relations is notable - even if that notability consists of simply not having any newsworthy tantrums. en.wp serves as a reference source on far less notable geo subjects, 1000s of American villages for example. And this comment "over 100 articles have been deleted" only suggests to me that you are keeping score. As does "prove me wrong." Do you realise that this sounds wikt:competitive? I choose not to further waste my editing bytes to prove anything because by my understanding of WP:GNG there is such a thing as latent notability - we already have sources that Serbia and Venezuela exist, and that they have relations. In the absence of a special burden/guideline with the agreement of WP Geography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations this article already passes WP:GNG since the subjects' relation is sufficiently documented. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 of the 4 sources in the article refer to Kosovo which should go in International recognition of Kosovo, one source is primary being the Serbian government. so at best we are hinging on one source. I'll happily withdraw my nomination if you provide indepth coverage. or does WP:MUSTBESOURCES apply to you? this fails WP:GNG and you aren't convincing me otherwise.LibStar (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done searches in 3 languages and found no extensive coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Yes WP:MUSTBESOURCES does apply to me in this case, not because I'm staring at a large Venezuelan newspaper article about Serbia-Venezuela relations, but because common sense indicates that some subjects have latent notability. However I have dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations to see if there is a specific burden for this kind of article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * there is no inherent notability here like a geographic location or federal politican. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. This is why we have mechanisms like AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"sponsored cultural relations such as volleyball matches between Serbia and Venezuela" is really clutching at straws for bilateral relations. what makes notable bilateral relations is significant trade, migration or disputes. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That also is your opinion. I finds it notable enough for keep. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 00:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment none of the keep voters have actually provided any evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If Venezuela considers Kosovo to be part of Serbia, then an article about Venezuelan relations with the state should certainly include the fact that they consider the state to be bigger than most do. Venezuela certainly thinks their position on Kosovo is in "support of the Serbian people".  So I regard articles like this to be valid sources. --99of9 (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 99of9, I thank you for making a genuine attempt to find sources unlike others. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --99of9 (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Every statement in this article is backed by an inline citation, and questions about Kosovo are certainly relevant to Serbia, and to Venezuela when it is opposing Serbia (UN), or later when it is supporting Serbia. The article is clear, documented, and notable, and should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Not seeing any instances of WP:SYNTH considering the in-line citations and the fact that the article otherwise does not seem to fail WP:GNG. Mkdw talk 06:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep "As of 2010, Venezuelan diplomats continued to offer their support to Serbia in "their struggle against separatism"". They have a significant relationship with them.  The president of one nation saying and doing what he did in regards to the other, makes it a notable relationship.   D r e a m Focus  19:11, 6 March 2013 (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.