Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan–Spain 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan–Spain relations[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is no possible way that there are enough relations for this article to exist. Philosophy2 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the relations are not subject to significant coverage thus failing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: beyond the invalid deletion rationale by nominator, with respect to the GNG as raised by LibStar, it is in my view satisfied by the following additional sources: recognition of South Sudan by Spain in 2011 [1], [2]; visit of high-ranking foreign affairs official to South Sudan's capital in 2011 [3]; Spain proposing to mediate the Sudan-South Sudan conflict in 2013 [4]; Spain high-level diplomat declaring it will not "abandon" South Sudan and ensure it enters the international community [5]; Spain not pledging to aid South Sudan during the 2017 famine [6]; Spanish development agency sending funds to South Sudan to face 2020 floods [7], [8]. Pilaz (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Libstar. Nothing in the links found by Pilaz" adds up to "significant coverage" in my opinion. Yilloslime (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2021 (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.