Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand–Uruguay 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   delete.  Sandstein  10:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thailand–Uruguay relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, neither country has a resident ambassador, no evidence of significant migration, agreements or state visits. Article claims trade is significant yet looking at the source bilateral trade was a meagre USD70 million in 2012, many companies do more trade in one day. Article has the vague statement "opportunities lying ahead are enormous" which is identical to a line in India–Uruguay relations LibStar (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is a trade agreement from 1987, which I will include straight away. --Fadesga (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And please read another addition: the UCUDAL promoting Thai culture in Uruguay. --Fadesga (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if there is one agreement, the relationship is not subject to significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful, verifiable information. The amounts don't matter. -M.Altenmann >t 18:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Withholding rationale, not required according to rules. I hope my opinion is not discounted. I don't believe this article should be deleted. --  Green  C  14:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. interesting that for someone who primarily edits literature related articles suddenly pops up on a bilateral relations AfD without even any genuine attempt of proving notability which you do in literature afds... Any reason why? LibStar (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My recommended "course of action" is to keep and improve the article because I think it's a notable topic that can be improved. "who primarily edits literature related articles", you wish. The real issue here is the nom's attempt to discredit and discourage participation by bringing in contradictory and controversial essays that have no consensus. -- Green  C  16:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the real reason you came here is because you ddisliked myself marking an article you created as having notability concerns. . Within 30 mins you suddenly appear at your first bilateral AfD with a vote with no argument. If you made a genuine attempt to find sosources or construct an argument I'd believe you, but I'm sure the closing admin will take into account your behavior here. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw your edit to that article, checked your recent edit history and happened upon this AfD, that's one of my normal ways to discover pages to work on and improve the project. And I didn't initially make a detailed explanation because I don't have a lot of experience with bilateral topics, but notability is reason enough. It's not true that my vote was made in bad faith, I could have voted either way but believe this article should be kept - I usually vote Keep and anyway it's in-line with how everyone else who voted so far, it would be more surprising had I voted Delete. -- Green  C  15:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * given the much more substantial delete arguments below, it really is no longer in line with everyone else. LibStar (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 I don't have a lot of experience with bilateral topics little or no experience? In the time spent discussing here, you could have easily constructed an argument for notability, I would have assumed good faith if you produced a decent argument instead of a lame "withholding rationale " no closing admin will take that seriously. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I already said "notability" above which is perfectly valid in particular with the number of sources. Since you keep assuming bad faith and trying to influence the closing admin ("no closing admin will take that") there's nothing more to say. -- Green  C  17:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - diplomatic relationships between countries are not inherently notable; like everything else, we still require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. A single trade MoU between the two is not a signifier of a significant diplomatic relationship, nor is the existence of mutual diplomatic representatives. The sources in question, as far as I can tell, talk about Uruguay's economic opportunities in the region in general, not in Thailand specifically. The suggestion that $70 million in trade is "significant" is nonsense but even actually significant trade wouldn't make the diplomatic relationship inherently notable. There is no detailed analysis of the value of one country to the other, the history of their relationship, mutual involvement in conflicts, etc. The fact that mutual membership of broad international collectives has been included speaks volumes about the lack of any actual relationship between the two.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - You cane easily fit this into Foreign relations of Thailand and Foreign relations of Uruguay. Also, I have never heard of Uruguay and Thailand's relations in the news ever. If I read the Current events portals (since I usually try looking for modern history of countries), I don't think I would find anything relating to them. If anything happens in future that is big between the two, maybe we should have the page again. Also, this has been talked about before. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - If we keep this then we might as well create an article on Sealand–Republic of Molossia relations or Freetown Christiana–Hutt River relations. Kidding and WP:OSE aside, relations between the two countries are rather insignificant, limited to a few trade-related things and not much else, clearly not enough for a separate article. A merge to Foreign relations of Uruguay is possible, but either way there's really not much between the two countries. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither country even has an ambassador in the other, but has it as a shared responsibility for an ambassador to a nearby major country. I've supported many of these, but not when the link is as weak as it is here.  DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (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.