Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil – People's Republic of China 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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 07:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil – People's Republic of China relations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical "X-Y relations" article: very short, synthesis, no sources. Very few of these relations were of lasting importance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's sole referenced source states that China is Brazil's largest trade partner, which would give value to this article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree the trade agreement gives value to the relations however is this really something which cannot be covered in Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China and Foreign relations of Brazil essentially you are creating an article based around one sentence. Afro (Talk) 12:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tenmei (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Are you kidding? China is Brazil's largest trading partner. Brazil and China make up half of the influential BRIC group. This, This, This, and this all discuss the topic in-depth. How could you possibly think that it is not a notable relationship?--TM 17:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added references to articles specifically covering the relationship from 5 countries on 4 continents.--TM 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2. See Brazil and China for another substantial source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that not all bilateral relations articles should be kept. However, Brazil and China are two large, important countries that have had substantial interactions. This article may need to be written better, with each individual interaction incorporated into flowing prose, but I think it is notable enough to be kept.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Both countries have large economy, and China is Brazil's largest trading partner. Here, Here, Here, Here Ahmetyal 16:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Even as someone who has normally voted delete on bilateral relations articles I was surprised to find this at AfD. Current article might not be that great but there is clear potential per the sources given by others, so shouldn't be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per improvements by TM, per the fact it easilly ranks among the worlds top 20 relationships, and as it has a stylish Groubani style map. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in international media. --Edcolins (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confabulate 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article since nomination. SnottyWong ^confabulate 20:10, 25 January 2011 (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.