Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhutan-Slovenia 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. Courcelles 17:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan-Slovenia relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. All there is to these relations is diplomatic recognition. No agreements, no state visits, no significant trade or migration. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Any signing of diplomatic relations is notable. I have provided evidence of bilateral trade to the article. The Bhutan -Slovenia diplomatic relation is less than a year old, so trade agreements and state visits are not to start this soon. I disagree with deleting this article and to say that two nations agreeing to start bilateral relations is notable. --KuchenZimjah (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, simply having diplomatic relations does not mean an automatic Wikipedia article. There needs to be significant coverage in third party sources which is lacking here. The level of trade is very low, many companies spend that money in one hour. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 17:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 17:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's possible Slovene diplomats can find Bhutan on a map; the reverse is also conceivable. Beyond that, the very notion of such a topic is preposterous. Yes, "relations" allegedly "exist", but as for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not really. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment neither of these countries is a major power, and I think that a basic requisite for this sort of thing is that at least one of them should be a major power or if not both should be regional neighbours, or they should have strong historical (colonial) ties. (In the case of the first criterion, I would include the EU as a "major power" because its members tend to act as bloc in trade policy and many other aspects). This relationship however does not meet any of these criteria. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So Bhutan-India relations, Bhutan-China relations, Bhutan-Nepal relations, Bhutan-Bangladesh relations, Bhutan-United States relations, Bhutan-United Kingdom relations, Bhutan-Russia relations, Bhutan-France relations, Bhutan-Germany relations, Bhutan-Japan relations, Bhutan-European Union relations, is not necessarily an exclusive list, but it's this sort of thing. Add Austria-Slovenia relations, Croatia-Slovenia relations, Italy-Slovenia relations, Greece-Slovenia relations Hungary-Slovenia relations, Bosnia-Slovenia relations, Macedonia-Slovenia relations, Germany-Slovenia relations, Slovenia-United Kingdom relations, Slovenia-United States relations, Japan-Slovenia relations, Russia-Slovenia relations, France-Slovenia relations, another pretty good, but not necessarily exhaustive list. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per every other one of these silly articles that have been found and nominated for deletion. Unless there is something notable about the relationship, an article about the relationship shouldn't exist. BTBB above provides a good analysis. Stalwart111 03:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Finnegas (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biruitorul. While most bilateral relations are (IMHO) notable, this one isn't. $2,000 in annual trade is virtually nothing. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no evidence of notability, and it's hugely unlikely that there would be a notable level of contact between these two small, geographically distant, and culturally dissimilar countries. I did grin at the statement that "Slovenia is a keen exporter of Marble and travertine to the Kingdom of Bhutan with such trade exceeding $8,500 in the 2010 financial trading year" though - $8,500 wouldn't be a measurable proportion of Slovenia's exports! Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userify Remove from mainspace and incubate it until the "relations" get more coverage; while I believe international relations are important, they still need to meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2013 (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.