Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations

WP:DSBILATERALWP: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

Albania–Iceland relations

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

This article is based on primary sources. There are no meaningful relations between the countries like trade or migration. The 2 leader visits were for multilateral summits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Iceland. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have one thing in common: both countries recognize and supports good relations with Kosovo. The Sergei (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and how does it relate to relations between Albania and Iceland? Have their leaders discussed Kosovo in a meeting? LibStar (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Spain does not recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state, which has led Albania to distance itself. Spain is neutral on Albania's EU accession." from Albania–Spain relations page, and in this page mentions Kosovo, + Iceland and Alabnia were part of KFOR The Sergei (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 countries may have been part of KFOR but is there any documented evidence of working together? Have their leaders discussed Kosovo in a meeting? LibStar (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any third party sources covering the actual bilateral relations between Iceland and Albania? LibStar (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 October 2025 Trump-Xi meeting

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

While I am extremely averse to WP:NOTNEWS and believe it is applied overzealously, this is the one article where its prohibition on "News reports" is applicable. The events of this meeting are "routine news coverage"; the meeting lasted for less than two hours without any seismic agreement—if such an agreement had been made, that is what the topic of the article should be. Perhaps there is room for an article on Trump's Asia trip writ large, but I am skeptical. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and South Korea. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 05:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Events, China, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This article be can redirected and incorporated in APEC Summit since the meeting was held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit. MichealKal (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bilateral meetings between American Presidents and Chinese General Secretaries are ipso facto notable and perforce have stand-alone articles, outcomes notwithstanding. kencf0618 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The above statement is false, US presidents have met with Chinese General Secretaries (and other countries' leaders) many times, including at most APEC summits, and there is no basis to need a standalone article for every time world leaders meet. Clear WP:NOTNEWS issue. Reywas92^Talk 15:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Trump and Xi have met bilaterally once before, i.e. not in the context of APEC or G20: 2017 April 6–9 at Mar-a-Largo, during his first administration. Unfortunately it doesn't have its own article, so that puts paid to that! kencf0618 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Also disagree with kencf0618's comment about all bilateral meetings between US and China heads having automatic notability. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per rationale of the nominator, MichaelKal, and Reywas92. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I agree that this subject does not merit its own article, however a redirect to APEC Summit is also inappropriate. That article is about APEC and its history, not specifically the 2025 meeting.The event is already included on China–United States trade war. That is the better redirect destination, considering the meeting was for the purpose of reaching a trade agreement and lowering trade tensions between the two countries Jcgaylor (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the China-United States trade war article is the most appropriate redirect target. More specifically, China–United States trade war#2025, per WP:RSECT. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Rwanda, London

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

Article merely confirms the high commission exists. The only third party source just confirms who the high commissioner is. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Rwanda, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It appears our title is not correct. Sources call it the "Rwandan High Commission in London". The phrase "High Commission of Rwanda" is not used on their website, or in sources for the London branch (that title is used for offices in New Delhi and Tanzania but not London). If you search under the correct name more sources will crop up. Here are some I found: [1], [2], [3], [4] I think possibly two of these count at WP:SIGCOV... but it's not a solid keep for me so I am staying neutral on this. In general I think diplomatic missions and embassies are significant enough that they should be covered somewhere, but maybe not on their own page. Perhaps a merge to Rwanda–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic relations as an WP:ATD?4meter4 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Chamber of Commerce in Singapore

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sources consist of trivial mentions ([5]), routine business reporting on partnerships and events ([6], [7], [8]), and materials written by the organization or affiliated orgs ([9], [10]). A WP:BEFORE search did not yield better sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Singapore, and Vietnam. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Aesurias (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contribs · he/him) 12:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Fails WP:ORG. In addition to nom, there are only 3 google news hits. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep in light of additional sources found below. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. I've read the nominator's concerns, and I appreciate the detailed review. I agree that several of the sources currently in the article are weak (like the `sunrate.com` partnership page, which is primary) or "routine" (like the `soha.vn` article about a single program launch). These are fine for verifying specific facts but don't establish notability on their own.

However, the nominator's conclusion that better sources don't exist is incorrect, and their reasoning has a few misunderstandings:

1. **On Affiliation (CafeF):** The nominator lists the `cafef.vn` article as "materials written by the organization or affiliated orgs." This is a key misunderstanding. CafeF is one of Vietnam's largest and most-read independent business news portals, not an affiliate of VietCham. Its coverage is independent and reliable per WP:RS. 2. **On "Lack of Google News Hits":** The "3 Google news hits" argument from LibStar appears to be based on an English-only search. There is a significant body of reporting in reliable Vietnamese-language outlets, which are perfectly valid for establishing notability per WP:RS.

The article's notability per WP:NORG is clearly established by multiple in-depth, independent sources that are *about* the organization's history and strategic role, which the nominator's WP:BEFORE search seems to have missed. Here are a few examples:

1. "VietCham Singapore: Một thập kỷ kiến tạo giá trị cho doanh nghiệp Việt (VietCham Singapore: A decade of creating value for Vietnamese businesses)". VTC News (in Vietnamese). 2023-04-14. Retrieved 2025-10-20. * This article from VTC News is a full-length profile detailing the organization's 10-year history, its foundational goals, and its long-term impact on the Vietnamese business community. It's not a routine event report, but a clear example of significant coverage.

2. "Vì sao Singapore là điểm đến lý tưởng cho doanh nghiệp Việt? (Why is Singapore an ideal destination for Vietnamese businesses?)". CafeF (in Vietnamese). 2023-04-14. Retrieved 2025-10-20. * This is a separate 2023 article from the (independent) CafeF portal, also analyzing its 10-year history, its scale (20+ events, 1,200 experts), and its core strategy as a "launch-pad" (bệ phóng) for businesses.

3.s "VietCham Singapore: 'Bệ phóng' cho doanh nhân Việt tiến ra biển lớn (VietCham Singapore: 'Launch-pad' for Vietnamese entrepreneurs to go to the big sea)". VnEconomy (Vietnam Economic Times) (in Vietnamese). 2022-08-29. Retrieved 2025-10-20. * This is an in-depth profile from the Vietnam Economic Times, focusing *on the organization's specific strategic function* as a key player in the bilateral business relationship, not just a single event.

4. "Singapore - 'bàn đạp' cho doanh nhân Việt tiến ra 'biển lớn' (Singapore - 'launch-pad' for Vietnamese entrepreneurs to go to the 'big sea')". Dân Trí (in Vietnamese). 2022-08-29. Retrieved 2025-10-20. * A fourth major, independent source (Dân Trí) analyzing VietCham's specific role and strategy, reinforcing that its core mission (not just its events) is a topic of national news coverage.

These sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage about VietCham, not just its routine activities. These new sources show the topic is notable. I am actively working to improve the article by integrating these stronger sources. Therefore, the article meets WP:NORG and should be kept.

Jinhma (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not establish notability; they all appear to be PR pieces written to promote the organization. In particular, sources 3 and 4 share the same pictures, and the bottom of sources 3 and 4 have a note: Các nhu cầu phổ biến trên đã được VietCham tập hợp và đúc kết trong cuốn cẩm nang Viet Biz in Sing (https://blog.mocongtysingapore.com/vi-vn/biz). Google Translate: The above common needs have been collected and summarized by VietCham in the Viet Biz in Sing handbook (https://blog.mocongtysingapore.com/vi-vn/biz). This suggests that they are not independent sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is hard for me to believe that a title translating to "VietCham Singapore: A decade of creating value for Vietnamese businesses" is somehow an independent source. The second source, with a title translating to "Why is Singapore an ideal destination for Vietnamese businesses?", uses classic PR tactics, starting out with a value proposition and introducing the organization in the second half of the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I want to thank you for spotting that.

Your discovery about the identical "handbook" paragraph in the **Vietnam Economic Times (VnEconomy)** and **Dân Trí** articles is correct, but it leads to the opposite conclusion.

1. **On the VnEconomy and Dân Trí articles:** You dismissed these as non-independent. This misses the most important point. Vietnam Economic Times is a major, reliable national economic newspaper. Dân Trí is a major newspaper with its own Wikipedia page, operating under Vietnam's Ministry of Interior. The very fact that both of these major, independent, and reliable publications are interviewing VietCham's leadership and citing its "Viet Biz in Sing" handbook as an authoritative source for an article on Vietnam-Singapore trade is *itself* strong evidence of notability. Being treated as an expert authority by multiple major newspapers shows the organization's real-world significance and meets WP:NORG.

The Articles:

"VietCham Singapore: 'Bệ phóng' cho doanh nhân Việt tiến ra biển lớn (VietCham Singapore: 'Launch-pad' for Vietnamese entrepreneurs to go to the big sea)". Vietnam Economic Times (in Vietnamese). 2022-08-29. Retrieved 2025-10-21.
"Singapore - 'bàn đạp' cho doanh nhân Việt tiến ra 'biển lớn' (Singapore - 'launch-pad' for Vietnamese entrepreneurs to go to the 'big sea')". Dân Trí (in Vietnamese). 2022-08-29. Retrieved 2025-10-21.

2. On VTC News and CafeF: I agree with you that the titles—like "A decade of creating value"—sound promotional. While these outlets are independent (as I noted, CafeF is a major business portal, not an affiliate), you make a fair point. Because this framing is so positive, I can see why these articles may not be seen as the strongest, most independent evidence, even if they are factually correct.

I will continue to add more sources to further justify the article's notability, including the most authoritative source in the country.

One of which is Nhân Dân (The People's Daily), the official newspaper and central organ of the Communist Party of Vietnam. This is arguably the most authoritative and reliable source in the country for official positions.

The Article: "Hỗ trợ doanh nghiệp tiếp cận thị trường Singapore (Supporting businesses to access the Singaporean market)". Nhân Dân (in Vietnamese). 2024-04-10. Retrieved 2025-10-21.
Why it's Notable: This is not a PR profile. It is a report on national economic policy. In this article, the state newspaper explicitly names VietCham as a key, official-level intermediary, stating:

"Through VietCham Singapore and the Representative Office of the Hanoi Small andMedium Enterprises Association, businesses can connect directly with 75 associations and more than 40 international chambers of commerce [under] the Singapore Business Federation, contributing to risk reduction..."

This single source demonstrates that the highest level of state media recognizes VietCham not as just another trade association, but as a critical, official channel for Vietnamese international trade policy and a direct link to the Singaporean government's business federation. This goes far beyond PR and speaks directly to the organization's significance.

Of course, I will continue to improve the article, adding more sources that I find. The topic clearly meets WP:NORG and should be kept.

Jinhma (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using AI to generate and/or format replies. The fact that two different news organizations published very similar pieces about Singapore being a "launch-pad" strongly implies that both of them are churnalism or PR. It does not matter whether the publisher is independent; what matters is that the content was produced independently of the organization. The last article is just quoting a member of the Hanoi Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, it is not independent coverage of the organization. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we don't know you're using AI??? Aesurias (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was okay for formatting help, I was using AI to help me format my replies. However, the points I made still stands. Jinhma (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These points are my own. I am avoiding the use of AI from now on.

Keep. I am reiterating my defence for my article, as my responses were deleted by others. It is just my points from before, not any new points.

On Independence and Authority: The nominator cited sources like CafeF as “affiliated” in error; it is one of the largest, most independent and most-read business portals in Vietnam. More significantly, the nominator observed that the articles in Vietnam Economic Times and Dân Trí shared text, is evidence of notability. The reality that a number of major, reputable newspapers are interviewing the leadership of the organization and quoting its “Viet Biz in Sing” handbook as an authority demonstrates its real-world importance and establishes it as an expert in its field, per WP:NORG.

On State-Level Significance: The best proof comes from the most authoritative state newspaper in Vietnam, Nhân Dân. This source is not a public relations profile, but rather a coverage of national economic policy.

"Hỗ trợ doanh nghiệp tiếp cận thị trường Singapore (Supporting businesses to access the Singaporean market)". Nhân Dân (in Vietnamese). 2024-04-10.

This article mentions within it that VietCham is a ‘core, official-level intermediary’ and a ‘vital, official channel’ for the Vietnamese trade services policy. The state’s central organ, having VietCham positioned in a direct line to the Singapore Business Federation.

On Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV): Apart from the above, other documents highlight and analyze the organization’s decade-long span in addition to strategic importance from beyond mere activities.

"VietCham Singapore: Một thập kỷ kiến tạo giá trị cho doanh nghiệp Việt (VietCham Singapore: A decade of creating value for Vietnamese businesses)". VTC News (in Vietnamese). 2023-04-14.
"Vì sao Singapore là điểm đến lý tưởng cho doanh nghiệp Việt? (Why is Singapore an ideal destination for Vietnamese businesses?)". CafeF (in Vietnamese). 2023-04-14.

Jinhma (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just terrible, Jinhma. This is clearly AI use, you should just use your own words, without any formatting like this. Speak like a human person, without all of this unnecessary coding. I am not sure what here to take seriously. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A human-written source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, source 4 is primary. A source analysis is going to be biased, there is no independent press in Vietnam at all, all sources are censored to one degree or another. The sources (for what they are) mention this "thing", but none are independent of government control. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]