Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Croatia relations

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 May 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is still open, this would disrupt the process. X clamation point 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as delete per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Croatia relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. non resident ambassadors. no agreements whatsoever except establishing diplomatic ties in 1995. [1] LibStar (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, which is directly related to the issue of notability, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Nomination for deletion is pre-mature and could preempt and poison the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[2]. Wikipedia will not implode if these articles exist while discussion is on going. Martintg (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random pairing lacking in third-party sources about the relationship that confirm its notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random, contrived and of no potential informative value ever. Dahn (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Colombia has an embassy in Austria, Croatia has an embassy in Brazil. The two countries signed one agreement, and that was to establish diplomatic relations. No indication of anything notable. If you have something to show otherwise, please share it with us rather than accusing us of poisoning a discussion. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this guy really is obsessive. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more so than the rest of us, I guess. He or she has his opinion, we have ours. It doesn't appear that the "put it on hold" proposal has stopped any rulings on these articles. I don't think the administrators want to deal with the flood that would result if the river is "dammed up" for awhile. Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion, a relationship between any two countries of the world is inherently notable. (BTW: calling an editor "obsessive" is a clear WP:ATTACK.) GregorB (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a number of these X-Y articles have been deleted in recent weeks, I would say at least 30, so relationships are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's either that, or the deletions were wrong. GregorB (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: Two of the three "keep" votes above are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. ~~The remaining "keep" vote immediately above is based on an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument involving a class of about 20,000 potential articles, many of which have been deleted already.~~ --Hans Adler (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but no, it isn't based on WP:OTHERSTUFF - I made no mention of "other" articles, existing or potential. GregorB (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I see what you mean. My point was that you seem to believe that all these 20,000 article topics are automatically notable, and that the deletions of dozens of such articles show that this is not an opinion shared by a majority of the community. I think that's still problematic, although probably no reason to dismiss your !vote. Sorry. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem - that was just my opinion, nothing more. I understand the frustration of having to go through the same process over and over, but if notability is the issue here, than it has to be assessed either on a per-article basis, over and over (because in this case prior discussion results can not be binding), or "once and for all" (barring WP:CCC, of course) in a global discussion. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the result of the centralized discussion. OTOH I'll try to improve the article in the meantime. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I hinted above: The result of the centralised discussion will either not cover cases such as this article (if there will be any result at all, which is far from clear at the moment). Or any demarcations it produces will be based on the outcomes of deletion discussions such as this one. If this is the best justification for this article that you can come up with, your !vote needs to be disregarded. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's something for the closing admin to decide. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability and verifiability guidelines are already in place and we should use them until the day comes when some newer guideline takes their place and not "keep" now in the hope of some more inclusive guideline or policy being created in the future. In this specific instance, no reliable sources discuss this alleged relationship in any non-trivial depth. The stub is completely unsourced, without even a bare assertion of notability. I find no sources elsewhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (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.