Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panama–Russia 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panama–Russia relations[edit]

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

Non notabily for WP:FOR#Bilateral relations Stigni (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. I have a question about their level of trade: Have they ever had much trade? Bearian (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what you consider to be "much". It 2011, the trade volume was only ~$66 million, but in 2008 it was ~$340 million. Either is chump change for Russia, of course, but I don't know if that's considered significant for Panama. There's more on the Panama-Russia trade in this article (in Russian), but it uses older data. Also note that while the trade volume may be low, the investment flows are more significant (see, for example, here).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 17:37 (UTC)
Oppose deletion for procedural reasons. WikiProject-specific guidelines cannot serve as a basis for determining notability (only the WP:N criteria can) and, subsequently, for deletion. (But if objections based on WP:N are brought to light, I'll consider striking my oppose out).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 18:40 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep article is a notable topic but needs to be improved and expanded. Not a reason for deletion. Outback the koala (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not improve from September 2008, the two nation doesn't have important fact that is not trade and the maximum trade was in 2008 with the 1% of Panama GDP (now is 0,2%), and there wasn't official visit of president/prime minister between the two nation so if you don't explain how the relation is notable for WP:GNG for me it remains delete, because article from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the two country doesn't respect the criteria: "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"; and such article could be considered as primary sources ("written by people who are directly involved"). Stigni (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the piece is bad (which it is), unsourced (which it is), and hasn't improved since 2008 (which it hasn't), is neither here nor there. The question is whether this topic is encyclopedic (which it is) and whether it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines as the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage in so-called reliable sources. The hot Google search to confirm that this IS a notable subject is "NORIEGA" + "SOVIET UNION". Oldsters such as myself can remember firsthand the breathless twitterpation of the mainsteam media over Soviet intentions and relations with respect to Panama during the 1970s and to a lesser extent the 1980s. This is a clear GNG pass here. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No policy-based reason for deletion given in the nomination, which is based not upon notability guidelines but an outline for participants at a WikiProject. While there are no sources showing, this one is sourceable under GNG, as a search for "NORIEGA" + "SOVIET UNION" should demonstrate. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said above this article fail GNG, because there is not any real fact about Panama and Soviet Union/Russia. The Noriega case is after the U.S. occupation of Panama and the reaction after his arrest, so I think that if it has Notability can be insert on the occupation article or on his page. And for the improved, I think this [1] can be considerate a no-improve. Stigni (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Outback and Carrite. Plenty of room exists for improvement. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2012 (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.