Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations

WP:DSBILATERAL

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bilateral relations. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Bilateral relations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Bilateral relations. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Bilateral relations

Embassy of Costa Rica, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Costa Rica. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere appropriate. Not seeing any urgent need to delete this? The sources seem adequate to support the content provided. If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London, not a single one has ended in delete (most have been redirected to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, a target that is on my list to improve), a couple have been kept and some merged or redirected to other targets. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find that useful list; could a column for extra information be added there? It seems to me to be useful and interesting that the Costa Rican embassy converted relatively recently from a "mission", which is supported by a reliable Times source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for that is on my list. Leave a note on the talk page with ideas for improvement so I remember them when I get to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended There have been many, many AfDs for diplomatic missions over several years and very few have been kept. AfD is clearly the appropriate place for each individual diplomatic mission to be assessed on notability. Not sure what's controversial here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London There have been many AfDs over several years for individual diplomatic missions globally, not just "in London". You may only be interested in missions in London but that's simply a mischaracterisation. You are also inaccurate in suggesting none have been deleted. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD AfD is an appropriate venue to decide a potential merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is fine, prod not so much, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some embassy articles have been deleted. So it is false to say very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources 3-10 confirm former ambassadors and are not about the embassy itself. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Genuine question, where exactly in WP:ORG do you consider this falls? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 1 and 2 are about the actual embassy. Source 1 is a database list. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was that intended to be in response to my question? Not seeing how it answers it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources do not meet that. There will be no further response. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you suggesting WP:NORG doesn't apply? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to clarify exactly which part of ORG was held to apply -- eg the standards for companies are entirely different from those for non-profits, but there's no specific guidance for embassies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If the embassy does not have stand-alone notability then the encyclopaedic content should be merged somewhere. Straight deletion will not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Normally we would merge this kind of article into a foreign relations page at Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. However, that article has not yet been created. It probably should be. Perhaps a move to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations? Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is trending toward a merge, but without a clearly defined article to merge it into, that makes it kinda tough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations

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

Unnecessary split of Colombia–Nicaragua relations. In fact, I'm not familiar with any other timeline article on foreign relations. This page covers some incidents not mentioned on the parent article, yes, but there's no reason it couldn't be covered there instead — the parent article is not very long and would absolutely benefit from more context. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. We'd literally be deleting every timeline on wikipedia if we accepted the nominator's rationale as valid. Timelines are a valid secondary form of presenting content. Per NLIST they are not considered a duplicate or a content fork of an identical topic covered within a prose article. Given that the prose version of the article has lots of WP:SIGCOV sourcing; it would be an easy matter of using those sources to improve the sourcing on the timeline page.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Lists, Colombia, and Nicaragua. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Colombia–Nicaragua relations. If you want to propose a merge so the parent article covers this, you can generally follow the instructions at WP:MERGE rather than nominating it for deletion. That includes just boldly doing it yourself – I doubt anyone would object when no one's really touched it since it was created in 2007. I agree that the main article should have this context, rather than having this unnecessary split. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No sourcing, except for the last sentence in the last entry. There is no verification of any of this list, save that final citation. — Maile (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change my Delete vote to Merge, makes more sense — Maile (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Merge into the Colombia–Nicaragua relations page. Neither is very big. Sheesh. Yilloslime (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, only one source, no need to cover this topic twice. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no compelling reason to delete. No problem with the article cannot be resolved with improvements. As for the existence of these types of articles, here are some international relations timeline articles: Timeline of Hungary–European Union relations, Timeline of Japan–United States relations Mason7512 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between Keep and Merge outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since the topic is not large enough to warrant a split. Do this without prejucide for other timelines; at the same time, the existence of other timelines is not relevant to the outcome of this particular timeline. Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and probably prosify) per WP:NOPAGE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Malaysia, London

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

Article based on a primary source and directory listing. No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Diplomatic premises are rarely individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London where it is mentioned, as has been done for every other non-notable embassy and high commission in London brought to AfD or PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Malaysia–United Kingdom relations. @Thryduulf the embassy is also on the List of diplomatic missions of Malaysia. I think we could actually save all the content on the relations page as a merge target which would be better than redirecting to one of several possible list pages. 4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]