Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austria–Uruguay relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Austria–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
noting that Austria has no resident embassy in Uruguay. only 2 minor agreements including 1 for the abolition of visas (which is something most western countries are doing). almost all coverage is in multilateral not bilateral context or about...football, English search, German search. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources provided do not satisfy WP:N. Also Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and TexasAndroid. For a stand alone article on any topic including this one, we need evidence of significant coverage of this topic in reliable, independent sources. We don't have that here. Yilloslime TC 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources adress these bilateral relations in the depth required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Allow to develop. Research and add sourced references. Libstar's personal opinion that an agreement between two nation states regarding their legal relationships over visas is "minor" is completely subjective (and I would argue, wrong). The fact that these countries have a relationship in a multilateral context does not dispel the fact that they have a relationship. The relation between these two states is "worthy of notice". --Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it may be subjective, but we are here to reach consensus on if the article meets WP:N. if you have significant independent coverage to prove this. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of multiple, significant coverage in independent sources. Cdogsimmons, could you please review WP:PSTS? You can't take a primary-source document (an agreement) and proclaim "notable relationship!" out of that. We need sources discussing the relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete where are the reliable, independent sources that discuss this posited bilateral relationship at all, let alone in the depth one would expect to support an encyclopedia article. I find none.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no useful content (pretty well no content, and very little prospect of anything worthwhile). No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing provided to establish the notability of the topic as a whole, or even any real part of it. Unremarkable in world affairs. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N. no independent secondary sources....Yilloslime TC 06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.