Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Philippines relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. the actual bilateral relations are very small. no resident embassies. the level of trade is relatively small, even the cited sources says "a small chunk of both nations' trade." LibStar (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-important topic as such relations are small and of course, not covered by any local newspaper. Fails WP:GNG as what Libstar said.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has cited sources but not good enough for a standalone article.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not familiar with specific notability guidelines for diplomatic relations, and I don't know whether the sources are good ones. The article creator has recently been adding or improving a lot of articles regarding bilateral relations between the Philippines and other countries, clearly in good faith, but I'm not sure how many of them reach WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence the subject is notable. We should not be turning red links blue just to do it. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 19 October 2016 (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.