Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uruguay–Philippines 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   '''Article deleted as copyright violation. created by editor who is now blocked for copyvios'''. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Uruguay–Philippines relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. article is lifted from this http://www.embafil.com.ar/Uruguay.html the fact there about 10 Filipinos living in uruguay says it all. those wanting to keep must provide actual sources demonstrating a notable relationshop, not "bilateral articles are notable" "keep can be improved". LibStar (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks notability. WP:EVENTS requires that an event have some real impact to be notable.  I see no political or cultural impact of the relationship between these two countries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJ Wine (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per reliable secondary and tertiary sources that have covered this topic. The topic is meeting WP:GNG:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the first article is mainly a description of Uruguay and hardly about actual bilateral relations. The 2nd article is a Primary source. We need third party sources, independent of foreign ministry websites. LibStar (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the first article is mainly a description of Uruguay and hardly about actual bilateral relations. The 2nd article is a Primary source. We need third party sources, independent of foreign ministry websites. LibStar (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Apart from the specfics which have already been detailed, they are both members of the Cairns Group and have a common culture and history as part of the Spanish empire. Warden (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * being part of the Cairns group or even the Spanish empire does not prove actual interactions between the 2 countries. are there state visits? trade agreements? LibStar (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - we need actual sources describing relations between Uruguay and the Philippines, not a Wikipedia editor giving us his point of view that because the two countries happen to be part of the same club, and because they were both controlled by the same colonial power, their relations are therefore notable. Unsurprisingly for two countries that are not global powers and are 11,000 miles apart, such sources are nowhere to be found. And as LibStar has noted, neither a newspaper article noting a national holiday nor an official record of a meeting between two foreign ministers come anywhere near establishing the notability of this "topic" that no one had heard of until someone had the bright idea of inventing it yesterday. - Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As atavism of a tiresome experiment in "if it can be named, it should have its own article". There are bound to be a couple of newspaper articles naming the two countries together, but to suggest that this awful collage makes for encyclopedic sourcing is to mock the purposes of wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is the above !vote based upon an actual search for sources, or only those presented thus far in this discussion? If the latter is the case, please consider doing research to locate additional sources, rather than basing a topic's merits only upon the sources presented thus far. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, it is "based upon an actual search for sources". Not that it would matter, because: 2) Per WP:BURDEN, I am not required to do that job - you are. 3) Your entire argument is spurious: to show evidence that there are no pandas in Somalia, one does not need to introduce pandas to Somalia. Pandas could live in Somalia; they just don't. Dahn (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your stance regarding the topic's notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000, let me just say that while searching never hurt anyone, even a basic knowledge of international affairs (which I would hope you have, as otherwise your competence to comment here might be called into question) can tell one one a priori that the number of countries with which Uruguay and the Philippines have article-worthy diplomatic relations is awfully small. For Uruguay, the list looks something like this: Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, United Kingdom, US. For the Philippines: China, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, US. (Note the omission of Spain from both lists: the colonial period itself, as well as things like the Argentine War of Independence or the Philippine Revolution, are more a matter of internal or military history than of relations between two sovereign states. In Uruguay's case, the colonial power has largely stayed out since the 1820s, while in the Philippines, its second colonial power, the US, has had a vastly greater impact since 1946 than the first.)
 * Searching can help in borderline cases: Uruguay-Chile? Philippines-Australia? But in a pairing so laughable as this, it's bound to turn up only meaningless trivia, as you have amply demonstrated. The set of article-worthy diplomatic pairings between small or medium powers on opposite sides of the globe is vanishingly small, and when they do exist (Israel–South Africa relations comes to mind), they're pretty well known, and their notability is immediately and obviously apparent after searching, which is definitely not the case here.
 * With both these countries, it's easy to spot the utterly fictitious pairings we already have: Australia–Uruguay relations, Canada–Uruguay relations, Greece–Uruguay relations, Israel–Uruguay relations, Lebanon–Uruguay relations, Switzerland–Uruguay relations; Philippines–Argentina relations, Bolivia–Philippines relations, Philippines–Canada relations, Chile–Philippines relations, Mexico–Philippines relations, Paraguay–Philippines relations, Pakistan–Philippines relations, Denmark–Philippines relations, Ireland–Philippines relations, Philippines–Romania relations. Some of the more egregious ones have survived AfDs similar to this one by being stuffed with trivia &mdash; Switzerland–Uruguay relations comes to mind as an exemplar of what not to do on this project. They should be deleted en masse, but starting with this one is not bad either. - Biruitorul Talk 01:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I appreciate your honest personal opinions. However, I disagree with the assessment of the sources I provided as "meaningless trivia". One is a news article from the Manilla Bulletin, a reliable source, and one is information from the government of the Republic of the Philippines. The Manilla Bulletin source discusses the National Day of Uruguay that occurs in the Philippines, which has connotations of relations between the two countries, because the Philippines has a national day of recognition for Uruguay. The article also mentions Uruguay's Consulate in the Philippines, headed by Consul Alfred V. Ty. While this is the weaker source of the two, it has a slight amount of significance relative to the topic. The source from the government of the Republic of the Philippines contains extensive information about the Philippines reactivating ties with Uruguay and Paraguay, by establishing mechanisms for regular bilateral consultations. The use of the word "regular" in this context refers to an increase in bilateral consultations between the two countries. The article describes matters regarding bilateral trade between the Philippines and Uruguay and each country's imports and exports to the other country. I don't consider this as "meaningless trivia", I consider it to be factual, significant information that is directly related to the topic. The government of the Republic of the Philippines certainly doesn't consider the content as meaningless or trivial. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - More information and statistical data from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Buenos Aires, which "is responsible for promoting and protecting the interests of the Philippines and welfare of Filipino citizens in Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay."
 * Bilateral relations between Uruguay and the Philippines
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 08:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * how about some third party sources like maybe 4 or 5 major newspapers ant nor foreign ministry websites? I fail to see significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid dismissing my comments as "honest personal opinions" isn't going to be quite so easy. The fact is that the set of Uruguay's article-worthy bilateral relations is essentially limited to its near neighbors in South America, Britain (the main foreign player until the 1930s) and the US (since that time). You don't have to take my word for it: I encourage you to email or call Professor Mark Jones, Uruguay expert. Explain to him what's going on here; seek his opinion; maybe even have him comment here. You'll see the expert brings back the same "personal opinion".
 * Now for the specifics. A newspaper article informing readers of the occasion of a foreign country's national holiday &mdash; with or without congratulations to "Consul Alfred V. Ty" &mdash; does not in any way constitute evidence of notable bilateral relations. The only reason you're even bringing this up is because it's almost all you could find on this "relationship", and this proves it's trivia: for a relationship with actual significance, we readily find an abundance of sources dealing with the actual relationship, not informational pieces that have zero bearing on the topic. For example, would we ever consider citing this article at Dominican Republic–United States relations? No, because for one, like the article you brought up, it's not relevant, and for another because the countries have a relationship that not only is significant, but has been amply documented in a variety of scholarly sources. In other words, when we have such sources, we don't need to stoop to trivia; when we don't, we either have to, or preferably to delete.
 * As for this: it's a government press release. Yes, the relationship does exist; no, it's not significant if no one outside official channels has ever mentioned it. Likewise with this. When all you have to say is that the Philippines imported .448 tons of cotton from Uruguay in 2010, it's a good sign the game is up and the carcass should be left to rot. - Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * excellent, well said Biruitorul. If the national day of Uruguay barrel scrape is all that can be found in newspapers, it proves no notable relations exist. LibStar (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as noted above, plenty of good sources show notability, unlike, say, Articles for deletion/Bolivia–Philippines relations. Even a passing knowledge of the Philippines would allow one to question the claim that only 10 Filippinos reside in Uraguay; the Filippino diaspora is everywhere, hiding in plain sight, as I have noted in other AfDs. Uruguay is a seaport country where thousands of Irish Uraguyans live and the population is incredibly ethnically diverse, like the Philippines, but unlike Bolivia. More to come.... Bearian (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the respective size of minority groups matters for these bilateral relations articles; their nationals are likely to need consular help, emigrate and immigrate, and the two nations are likely to have multiple bilateral and multilateral treaties. For example, Uruguay and The Commonwealth of the Philippines were allies at the end of World War II.  There is a huge category of articles about the Filipino diaspora, and those People have tended to settle in port cities and countries with easy access by airplane, such as Uruguay (but not Bolivia). I can't do it right now/today, but I will search for additional sources. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do let us know how that search goes: not having presented any substantive evidence of notability &mdash; a burden that rests on those wishing to keep the article &mdash; what you have said thus far can readily be dismissed as speculation. We need actual sources on the topic of "Uruguay–Philippines relations", not airy musings on how a posited diaspora's purported need for visa stamps allegedly constitutes evidence of a notable bilateral relationship. And by the way, should the diaspora actually exist and be worthy of our attention because it's documented in reliable sources, Filipino Uruguayan is where that would be covered.
 * "Plenty of good sources"? An irrelevant newspaper article and a couple of government press releases? Our notability standards aren't that low.
 * I'm afraid your claim about World War II can't be taken very seriously. For one, the Philippines did not gain independence until 10 months after the Japanese surrender, and its foreign policy until that time was in American hands. For another, that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't say "hmm, these two countries were on the same side in a war, so that must be evidence of notable bilateral relations!" We call that original research or synthesis. No, we have to find a source discussing relations between Uruguay and the Philippines, one explicitly mentioning this as a noteworthy feature of their relationship. Naturally, no such source exists, so the connection is meaningless beyond what is already noted at Allies of World War II.
 * "The two nations are likely to have multiple bilateral and multilateral treaties"? Again, even taking this speculation at face value, so what? We don't say "hmm, here's a protocol on human trafficking, here's another on double taxation, there's a good old cooperation and mutual assistance treaty; voilà, notable relationship". Doesn't work that way. If there's a source on this topic discussing said treaties, sure, mention them. But it's not up to us to decide what does or doesn't constitute evidence of notable relations.
 * So yes, please let us know how the search goes, but I'm not holding my breath that something relevant will just happen to turn up. Trivia like what we've seen so far, probably, but nothing substantive actually dealing with relations between the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the Republic of the Philippines. - Biruitorul Talk 21:42, 21 May 2012 (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.