Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paraguay–Switzerland relations

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 May 13.
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay–Switzerland relations[edit]

whilst the 2 countries have embassies, the Swiss Govt doesn't say much about their relations [1]. also Google news search doesn't show much either [2] LibStar (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite insufficiently notable. Only 3000 more combinations to go. Collect (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's an old relationship, but only because these two countries are quite old; in terms of multiple, independent sources - no, so fails WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning at the other random country relations combinations... are we seriously going to have to do this over and over again?--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails not a directory and notability. Previous AFDs have shown that the community does not automatically grant inherent notability to the diplomatic relations of all countries. Edison (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- cant find any reliable sources. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no ongoing coverage, no notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More absurdity. Per above. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why should I withdraw when every single person has voted delete so far? LibStar (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not notable- there was a relationship of some significance but there hasn't been anything that's well documented since the wars. HJMitchell You rang? 00:39, 13 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.