Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switzerland–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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland–Uruguay relations

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

whilst these 2 countries have resident embassies, their relationship is not widely covered and mainly limited in a multilateral sense with other countries Swiss govt doesn't say much either  LibStar (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to actually read what Google gives you, not just do the search and stare at the first page and give up. Look at what a few hours of work did to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While these countries actually have embassies, that in and of itself shows nothing of note. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and probably several others as do the bulk of these articles. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's an old relationship, but only because both countries are old. Relevant content covered at Nueva Helvecia and the lists of diplomatic missions. No independent sources to establish notability. - Biruitorul Talk 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No rule requires info appear in only one place in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You acknowlege the relationship. sigh. Ikip (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a standard almanac entry per Wikipedia pillar I. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * :Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including,  , , ,

LibStar (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin If my answer is valid for all the pertaining articles why should I not be using it in all the pertaining article deletions, and why should another editor be trying to invalidate my response? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - When a Swiss/Uruguay trade war breaks out, we can always start an article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added info about Switzerland and Uruguay and the war. -- User:Docu
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What does List of diplomatic missions of Argentina have to do with the bilateral articles, its just a list of embassies? You do realize your article has been deleted and replaced as a redirect. It has no prose at all, it doesn't mention treaties, sports or economic cooperation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been updated, sorry for the confusion. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this unsourced stub. I find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep just because one doesn't want to expand it, it shouldn't be deleted. It now includes basic information on the topic. -- User:Docu
 * sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You like it? -- User:Docu
 * Comment. I don't have time to do anything to it or search for more now but certainly implies notability. I'd like to request a relist in order to allow more time for editors such as myself to do more thorough research.  HJMitchell    You rang?  21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do see the "independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly does it violate WP:GNG? It doesn't appear to at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject is the Swiss government's relations with Uruguay; the Swiss government is the source. - Biruitorul Talk 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough hear to establish notability, but the article would benefit from expansion with additional available material. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep; this one and the others. This entry in particular seems well sourced. It also sounds like many of these articles may be refactored into a longer article; worth keeping until then. As for notability: just because nothing has happened in the last few years for Google News to pick up doesn't make the relations between countries 'non-notable' -- the lack of any relations is also a circumstance worth noting between two countries, and I guarantee the topic of relations between these two countries is notable for residents of each country who happens to be living in the other. We're not short on space: if someone is willing to create these articles and willing to reference them they should be at liberty to create every combination of interest, with perhaps a bias towards summary articles ("foreign relations of..."). Each of the dozens of different countries in these various articles that LibStar is nominating for deletion have their own history and circumstance; I would not presume to judge their foreign relations "non-notable" based on a stub article! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I always do a Google news search on all dates. A common misconception is that google news can only search recent news. I actually don't nominate most bilateral articles I come across, but some of them are just plain notable. of course if people can find reliable sources they are welcome to. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to actually read what Google gives you, not just do the search and look at the first page and give up. Look at what a few hours of work did to the article. Based on your behavior you appear to just run the search to give the appearance of due diligence. It appears you nominate the articles that don't have a reference section, without attempting to improve before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. No, I actually don't nominate most bilateral articles I come across even if it has no references. I also check foreign ministry websites if it contains any usefulness and the existence of embassies (the existence of embassies is not the sole indicator). but similarly for you writing "keep almanac entry" at least 10 times is hardly proof you've found reliable sources. I'm happy to see if you find can reliable sources for others I've nominated. but if no one can find sources to establish notability then clearly the article should not exist. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the question is: why didn't you find the well sourced information when you claimed you performed due diligence and searched? I don't have any secret search engine that gives me access to information not available to you. Yet now there is a full article. You are supposed to be fixing the articles before nominating for deletion. And the Almanac Pillar of Wikipedia is still valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. Well my google news searches were obviously not good enough this time. but I should add that most bilateral articles I've nominated have been deleted. maybe not this time. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which makes me wonder how many of them were improperly searched before they were deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think this one is a good illustration. -- User:Docu
 * comment Google News only searches what it has access to; this may not include backfiles of papers that are not online or that are behind a paywall; doesn't include many foreign newspapers; and is of course language-dependent, like all databases. It's acceptable for getting a rough idea but generally spotty for archive searching. Cheers, your friendly neighborhood librarian -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

the same thing could be asked of any article on any topic in the history of Wikipedia that has been deleted not just bilateral relations, you are welcome to request a deletion review, if you disagree. mind you, you would think other (not all) editors would show proof of searching themselves if they supported delete.LibStar (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep incredibly well referenced article. Lets remember WP:BATTLEGROUND folks. Ikip (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * same token some people spend a lot of time copy and pasting in AfDs without attempting to address the notability of the article subject. Richard and I were merely discussing the merits of my nomination and he is entitled to do that in addressing the notability of the article subject. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I concur with Ikip. When I first commented, it was borderline but other editors have mananged to do the research for which i didn't have time. As such, in light of recent improvements (including 16 footnotes]], it easily fulfils WP:GNG. Good work. HJMitchell    You rang?  10:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that 10 of those 16 footnotes violate WP:PSTS, but who cares, right? And of course, Nueva Helvecia has its own article; "Switzerland of the Americas" has also been applied to Costa Rica, and anyway has nothing whatever to do with the topic; and the rest of the article is trivial nonsense, an experiment in "see me dump in whatever I happened to find on Google in a desperate attempt to validate clutter". Just one example: what contextual significance does it have that "Uruguay called for a Swiss style parliamentary system"?? Of course, that too has nothing to do with the topic, but outside its proper context - if there is one - the statement means less than nothing. If we must, we mention it at General Assembly of Uruguay, in a well-rounded, well-sourced article on that topic, writing about the various constitutional debates in Uruguay's history; we do not pluck out one trivial fact from that history and stick it in here because it happens to mention "Switzerland and Uruguay" in the same breath. Anything else abuses the very notion of what Wikipedia is for. And also, what possible relevance do a few hundred resident Uruguayans - not citizens of Switzerland, I hasten to add - have to anything? Is there any contextual significance to those numbers? No, of course not - just numbers you expect us to find evidence of something, without quite specifying what that might be. - Biruitorul Talk 14:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of pointing people to WP:PSTS please take a few moments to actually read it:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.
 * No one is involved in original research which is the caution that comes with using primary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, including primary sources without their importance being validated by secondary sources is itself a form of misleading our readers, as well as breaching WP:NOTDIR (after all, why not include whatever government documents we can find in any article); second, even regardless of WP:PSTS, there's still WP:GNG - sources need to be independent of the subject. And they need to have contextual significance, something that is glaringly lacking here. - Biruitorul Talk 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by. Anything else? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Biruitorul&namespace=4 -- User:Docu
 * a) Comment on content, not users - just try to refute my arguments; b) I've written at least four articles in that same period - what's your point? - Biruitorul Talk 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY due to substantial expansion and referencing by Richard and Docu. Good job! The "Switzerland of the Americas" and why it is called that demonstrates notable influence from the Swiss and the information on Nueva Helvecia demonstrates a clear basis for a historical and cultural relationship. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not like we don't have a separate article on Nueva Helvecia (see WP:CFORK for that), and no, the nickname shows nothing of the sort - it's merely a witticism coined by American and British commentators that has absolutely nothing to do with "Switzerland–Uruguay relations". - Biruitorul Talk 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a reminder there are more articles up for deletion that can use more Google searching and more references added and they are here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Battle of Waterloo, which overlaps with Hundred_Days, which overlaps with Napoleon_I_of_France and so on. Encyclopedias typically have articles that contain elements, which essentially overlap with other articles, but whereas the one on Nueva Helvecia (say comparable to Battle of Waterloo) is focused on that particular settlement, this article addresses the larger topic as say comparable to Hundred Days.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "larger topic" to address here. No independent sources have given significant coverage to "Switzerland–Uruguay relations", and citing nicknames and other bits of trivia cannot conceal that fact. - Biruitorul Talk 18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts are that enough sources have been presented and added to the article to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:05, 14 May 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.