Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Peru 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 redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Peru relations

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. even this says no agreements between 2 countries and modest trade. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/7100.html LibStar (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, located on opposite sides of the world, no cultural/historic ties, etc. Non-notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginally more notable than some of the others in that at least there is an Honorary Consul, but that just means one businessman conducts trade between the two countries from what I can tell. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. While relations between these two countries may not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Peru. The content currently available does not appear to merit a separate article, and is better understood in the context of the overview articles. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched in English and Spanish for information and am unable to find anything of note which could be used to build an article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[1]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 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) 09:48, 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 14:06, 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) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is some evidence of relative notability, but I missed this one, and it may be too late to rescue. :-( Bearian (talk) 01:08, 30 April 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.