Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germany–Guyana 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Guyana relations[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

These relations are very limited. No embassies, 1 agreement, no significant trade, no leader visits. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the relations happen in a multilateral context through CARICOM. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: has WP:BEFORE been followed? If so, what was the outcome of it? A rapid search has shown a few pieces in Guyanese media about bilateral relations with Germany, and I don't see an appraisal of said sources in the nomination. Pilaz (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I currently lack the time to do a full search before the end of the initial 7-day discussion period, but here are the sources I found that seem to be fit for WP:GNG: Stabroek News, Guyana Chronicle, OilNow Guyana, OilNow on Guyanan oil exports to Germany, Guyana Chronicle on the outgoing ambassador, this business magazie. From History of Guyana, I also see that East Germany signed a trade agreement with Guyana in the 1960s, and that German explorer Robert Hermann Schomburgk allegedly mapped the island on behalf of the British. So clearly there's a lot of material to discuss, and I would expect some coverage about the two aforementioned events too (passing? In-depth? We'll see). A relist would be in order here. Pilaz (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by Pilaz and those existing in the article convince me that WP:GNG can be met here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the previous sources I found. Bilateral relations are rarely exciting, but there is some coverage in this particular relationship with seemingly-reliable sources which I think addresses the nomination's concerns. Should be enough for a start-class article. Pilaz (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2022 (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.