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

Neil Crompton (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The limited news hits this person gets are routine coverage and not WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Saudi Arabia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Oman, Tokyo

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

2 of the 3 provided sources are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and Oman. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Guam

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

Non notable consulate. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Taiwan and Oceania. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomatic representation on this level rarely meets WP:ORGCRIT, can't find anything to indicate this case is different. AusLondonder (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the sources are primary except 6 and 7. For this source, it's a small mention of the office so doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taiwan–United States relations#Consular representation. —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taiwan–United States relations#Consular representation (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no objection to a redirect as nominator. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Fiji, Brussels

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

No inline sources. Basically a list of staff. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belgium, and Fiji. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost all of embassies fails WP:GNG. Fiji–Belgium relation does not exist so delete is the option here Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article would be at Belgium–Fiji relations for alphabetical reasons, but yeah. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sourcing to support WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note that LibStar has brought this article to AFD before under a slightly different name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Fiji to Belgium which is why the PROD on this article was declined. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz. I actually can't remember this in 2009! The previous keep !votes were more like WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Pakistan, Kyiv

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

Fails WP:ORG. Sources 2 to 12 merely confirm previous and current ambassadors LibStar (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Pakistan, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan: per ATD — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Kenya, Ottawa

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

Fails WP:ORG, only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kenya, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Brodeur

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), Turkey, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a notable diplomat and meets WP:GNG and or WP:BASIC. He has served as NATO spokesperson and there are some coverage about him, though some are press releases or news conference transcript, they are reliable because they are issued by either national governments or international organisations. I found these sources [1][2][3][4][5]. I think more reliable sources are out there waiting to be picked up and if a deep search is conducted they would be found. Piscili (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, this and this are not WP:SIGCOV of Brodeur, it is him making comments in the media and not about his life and career that would be significant coverage. This is a primary source from his employer NATO. I could not open the mid.ru source. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I also found this. I think on the whole he could be considered notable based on the breadth, if not depth, of coverage. While not current consensus, I am of the opinion that a diplomat who served in three countries or international organizations ought to be considered notable. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment It’s frustrating. There are literally hundreds of articles out there where he is mentioned in passing, his position, his history, etc. They are all in reliable, independent publications, however, there is then either an interview, or it’s mostly a report of what he says in relation to another topic. I don’t think I’ve come across another case where the person themselves is obviously important, and is constantly being asked their opinion on important matters / doing important things politically, without there being a specific article written with them as the topic. Like Bearian I think he should definitely be considered notable, multiple ambassadorships over thirty years SHOULD trump say a one term state senator in terms of notability, but while minor state level politicians are automatically considered notable, career ambassadors are not? Seems backwards. Especially given just how much coverage of what he himself says there is. Ideally I’d like to see the article kept, but can’t hang my argument on any specific WP policy.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Hundreds of these articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Maldives, Brussels

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

3 of the 4 sources are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Maldives, and Belgium. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there a possible Redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of the Maldives: Not notable per nom; unable to find secondary sources. There are a quite a few other diplomatic missions of the Maldives that should probably be redirected to this article or merged into an article about bilateral relations between the two countries. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 state visit by Kais Saied to China

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

There is no indication of notability for this visit. The sources are almost entirely government press releases and should be more WP:DIVERSE for independent notability. The page should be deleted and perhaps parts merged into the main Kais Saied article. Amigao (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Events, Tunisia, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Kais Saied is the President of Tunisia. This is an official State visit and as such, notability is an extremely big deal. I linked an independent English language source (2024 China-United States Exchange Foundation) under External links. I also linked a Brookings Institution commentary under External Links. They're building valuable contacts in a world that seems to be exploding, "Although there is no visible alienation between Tunisia and the European Union, the gradual distancing between Tunisia and the United States has become increasingly apparent." — Maile (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with no prejudice against a merge to the very empty China–Tunisia relations. The coverage and arguments provided by Maile to me, indicate that this event is likely to be notable (but not guaranteed) under WP:GEOSCOPE. I can see a benefit for having a summary of the event merged into the China-Tunisia relations article, (lack of analysis by secondary sources leaves this article as mostly a summary of what each government said about the event) but I view that more as an editorial decision than an AFD one. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this into the almost empty China–Tunisia relations makes sense. - Amigao (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I'm thinking about it, the more it makes sense. The two countries have diplomatic relations, but they seem very minimal. Documenting the visit in that article would help provide a clearer picture to the readers - especially because my keep vote is based more on the fact that I think secondary sources analysing this event are more likely going to exist in the near future than not. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Kais Saied is the president of Tunisia, and the president's visit to China in 2024 has brought diplomatic relations to the level of a "strategic partnership", meaning that future communication between the two sides will no longer be limited to the central government, but can be decentralized to the level of provincial and municipal cooperation, with direct cooperation in trade and military affairs as well. The same applies to direct cooperation in trade and military matters. China–Tunisia relations for sure, I think it could be worth significantly upgrading the content, and I will add it soon. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China–Tunisia relations. This is a news article and lacks proper coverage, absolutely no reason for it to have its own article independently of the main subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to to China–Tunisia relations. I agree with Thebiguglyalien, this seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS and would be better addressed in an article about a topic that has received sustained coverage. hinnk (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian–Azerbaijani cultural relations

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

Article is largely WP:OR and created by a now indef blocked user that had a history of using revisionist/negationist citations and misusing citations. Lacks WP:RS, unreliable sources include other Wiki projects and links that don't work. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The motives of a creator are not necessarily outweighed by the fact of notability. I’m unclear as the the nomination reasoning. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fix the article then? The topic is certainly notable. C F A 💬 13:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's notable, blow it up and start again. This is not a good start and is too problematic to keep around. Yilloslime (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nowhere near TNT territory. There are a few unreliable sources but they can be removed/replaced as necessary. We shouldn't delete articles just because the creator apparently has a bad track record. For the record, I think using TNT to delete any article on a notable topic is a prime example of "lazy editing". Fix it yourself or someone else will do it eventually. C F A 💬 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can be an extremely dangerous position to take, depending on the topic of the article. This particular one involves genocide and genocide denial. (Relevant context: 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, among many others.) Sometimes things really are "too problematic to keep around". -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has actually presented any evidence, beyond a few citations to Wiktionary, to justify why this article is so irredeemably flawed that it warrants deletion. As far as I can tell we're going off the fact that the creator was blocked – arguably just grave dancing. I wouldn't be sticking up for it if was obviously an anti-NPOV attack page mess, but the article is actually fairly well-written. C F A 💬 12:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There don't appear to be reliable sources indicating the notability of this topic, it should be deleted, Wikipedia isn't a place for articles that aren't notable. AntEgo (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't know how you came to this conclusion. There are entire books dedicated to this topic (e.g. [6][7][8][9]) and papers in academic journals ([10][11][12][13][14][15]), etc. C F A 💬 03:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk what's your point with these sources that have no page numbers. If you read the actual article text, most of this article is unverifibale, and the rest is very obscurely sourced synthesis or just original research. AntEgo (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Archives908 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after considering this discussion. The basis of this deletion nomination is the lack of RS but there are over 80 references here. A source analysis to actually review all of these sources and see if they are "unreliable" would be helpful. As other Delete positions are either per nom or weak on polcy reasoning, I think further consideration is due.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get where CFA and Liz is coming from. But as someone who has spent a lot of time dealing with the creator's extremely bad articles getting translated to English (eg [16]) (which may be related to off-Wiki coordination, that's another story), reviewing every citation in this article is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. It's a waste of time, the creator has severe WP:CIR issues (which they also demonstrated in this rather long conversation [17]) and misuse WP:RS however they please (through WP:SYNTH or even adding completely unsourced info), as well as cite non-WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the best out of pretty bad options - article creator is irrelevant if the subject is notable. If it's in a poor state then perhaps it needs fixing. As it's between the nations of Armenia and Azerbijan and not the countries, it shouldn't be merged into Azerbaijan–Armenia relations, if it were draftified it would probably get removed after 6 months because the article creator was blocked. Article has enough content to justify an article and is notable, but verifying the content because of the article creation is difficult.

Therefore I don't think deleting it helps the project. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. It's a mess, and unfortunately not in my wheelhouse, but it's a notable subject. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--there can be no doubt that the topic is notable. I wish I was more of an expert, and/or had more time to fix it. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2024 (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.

Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations

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

Previously deleted under looser notability standards at AfD in 2009. Not every country A and country B combination is notable. Very poorly sourced, no secondary sources at all. Contains wild claims such as "political relations are close due to similarities between the 2 countries on historical, geographical and economical issues." AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Saudi Arabia, and Cyprus. AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is based on 2 sources, 1 of which is primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added more sources and encyclopedic context. Bilateral relations between two nations should not be considered irrelevant, and without notoriety, the two countries have mutual cooperation agreements, and like all articles of embassies, consulates and diplomatic relations with the exception of a diplomat Ghirmai Ghebremariam, who opened a query of deletion because it does not meet expectations, the other previous ones could have relevance in the future, and if they should be maintained and improved, not redirected or merged, much less eliminated. Alon9393 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Indefinitely blocked for disruptive behaviour. Geschichte (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer lack of sigcov, in particular independent sources which discuss this topic directly.181.197.42.150 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This looks a bit like a WP:SOCK of banned Alon9393 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP's first edit was to Víctor Roqueme Quiñonez which Alon created, and then the IP suddenly appeared in AFD discussions of pages that Alon had been involved in, those being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kfir Tsafrir and this discussion. I don't know why the IP gave different opinions in the two AFDs though. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources in the article come close to showing sigcov, especially for a tiny country like Cyprus. Looking up the “Cyprus chamber forum in Riyadh”, I also found this [18]. Looking up the Saudi stance on the division of Cyprus, I found this (extremely biased) paper [19], which is definitely sigcov and argues that Saudi supports Turkey in the dispute (contradicting this article). On the other hand, this news report [20] suggests that Saudi supports Cyprus, not Turkey. The truth is probably a complicated mess. And this [21] suggests an electrical connection (extremely unlikely to happen, but it’s still coverage).

However, despite the coverage, I am not very confident that this article should be kept, since it has very little content that is both notable/DUE and verifiable. Diplomats meeting each other is usually not important enough for inclusion in an article, even if it generates newswire reports (like source 3). Worse, large parts of the article are made-up fluff (like the Cyprus dispute section). This might be a good case for a TNT, I’m not sure. Toadspike [Talk] 09:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]