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

Nimal Bandara (Diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not automatically notable, just because of their appointment. Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage not press releases about them presenting their credentials. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Israel. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage by secondary sources to justify WP:GNG, mostly passing mention about his post. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage by secondary sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

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

Generally along the lines of WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret M. Otteskov - consensus appears to be that ambassadors are not inherently notable. As for WP:GNG - Most of the sourcing is either non-independent or just mentions subject (i.e. does not cover her in any depth). There are 3 sources that don't appear to mention her at all. I have decent access to Scandinavian papers and speak Swedish so I also looked for any possible WP:SIGCOV there and was not able to find anything besides one mention. The Kenyan award she received, Burning Spear, does not appear to be exceptionally prestigious (she received the third class variety of the second tier order overall, alongside almost 200 ppl) so I'm doubtful if it could confer inherent notability on its own. Zzz plant (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment The consensus has agreed, I understand, that ambassadors are not inherently notable. This is despite Wikidata's consensus that Ambassador is not someone's job, but it is an award. Noting that other people are being mentioned in the rationale above. I note that we have over 100,000 people on Wikipedia who are notable because they were chosen by a town somewhere to kick a ball on their behalf. If they go on to represent their country then they become extra notable...(alongside well over 20,000 others - not 200) as long as they keep kicking a ball then they may be made ambassadors for the UN, leading charities or companies. I feel that the basis of this argument is that "ambassadors are not notable" - which is an idea that has never been proposed or agreed. This person has two national awards - the burning spear and being recognised as a representative of her country by her country and several others. You may not think that the American ambassador to Malawi is not notable - but it makes no sense to ignore the award and recognition that was given to that person when they were appointed. Ambassadors in Malawi are not only appointed by the President but they are grilled by a parliamentary committee to check that they are a notable candidate for the award of this position. Victuallers (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - maybe there's been a misunderstanding, my argument wasn't that "ambassadors are not notable", it was that - based on my current understanding - they don't have presumed or inherent notability, which is why I searched for SIGCOV, attempted to evaluate the burning spear award. and looked into the possibility of a national biography entry. Zzz plant (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I live in the U.S. so my access to information about African diplomats to European countries may be limited compared to, say, people who live geographically closer. Ergo, it interests me greatly to read a Wikipedia biography about an ambassador from Kenya to Finland, Latvia, etc. Notwithstanding the remarks made about quantity and quality of sources found, IMHO, it would be a pity to delete the article and lose the historical facts regarding diplomacy. (I came here because of the deletion notice at Women, but my comment stands regardless of the subject's gender.) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was that at one point being an ambassador was considered notable, now (I'm told) its not. So it was notable, and its not now. Are we now to discount an ambassadorship completely? That would appear to take a binary approach to a notability decision that this very process shows is loaded with opinion. Surely we should not be looking not for a new argument, but a small piece of evidence to add to the substantial piece of evidence of a national award (ie being made an ambassador). It seems to me that evidence that was once thought to be totally persuasive is now being discounted completely (mistakenly IMO) as no longer relevant. There are several independent sources that record that she has the award of being an ambassador. It is being argued below that "it is not because of the sources in the article." But, there are still several independent sources if we consider ones that support the award of ambassadorship and the other national award. Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for sources about her you can check the government website + plus the sources in the article that should be enough for notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the link is published by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm; that's the organization she represents ( bio is under 'about us'), so it is not an independent source. Zzz plant (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Unless you think the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm is not reputable.

The other thing, primary source can be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Which this website does. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this discussion. You can't use primary sources to show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she is notable, it is not because of the sources in the article - she was one of many award recipients and a BEFORE search brings up little beyond the fact she's an ambassador. It's possible I'm missing something but it doesn't look like there's SIGCOV of her specifically here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Dwight D. Eisenhower visit to Spain

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

The entire article was created in a single edit by User:Hectordej7544 ... and it is a fishy article. No in-line citations; only two sources. And both sources are very broad, generic sources (not specific to the 1959 visit). Another editor tagged the article as "AI-generated".

The WP:Verifiability is paramount, and articles need footnotes and citations to provide confidence. In addition, the editor that creates the articles should have READ the sources before creating the article.

I cannot verify if any of the information is valid, and I am challenging the content and the Notability. Noleander (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This visit was apparently a big deal in Eisenhower's presidency. I added a couple of external links that might help. The Remarks Upon Arrival at Torrejon Air Force Base, Madrid is provided via The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify Not adequately sourced to establish notability; his brief remarks are just a primary source. Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower#Europe seems to be a better place for a few sentences here rather than a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 04:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. No NEVENT. No evidence of WP:LASTING effect. FOARP (talk)|
Redirect to Foreign policy of the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration#International trips. Fails WP:NEVENT. There are many other short state visits listed here and it isn't clear why this specific visit would be more noteworthy. MidnightMayhem 14:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one was the first to Francoist Spain, and was a significant diplomatic win for Franco. There's plenty of coverage today about the significance of this particular visit. MarioGom (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as a recent creation without inline citations, this should have been draftified. MarioGom (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, if this boils down to notability: this topic does pass GNG and NEVENT, easily and by any metric. Just an example: [1]. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass WP:LASTING? How does it pass WP:NOTNEWS? FOARP (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources to back my claims:

"El día que Eisenhower, el «artífice de la paz», visitó a Franco". ABC (in Spanish). 9 February 2010.

Martín Alarcón, Julio (8 July 2016). "Bienvenido, Mister Eisenhower: el protocolo de las banalidades". El Mundo (in Spanish).

Palacios, Jesús (5 October 2021). "Eisenhower, el mayor éxito internacional de Franco". La Razón (in Spanish).

"Eisenhower, o el triunfo internacional del régimen franquista". La Razón (in Spanish). 21 December 2021.

"La visita de Eisenhower a Franco: así legitimó EEUU a la dictadura como aliado contra el comunismo". La Sexta (in Spanish). 20 May 2022.

These are all between 51 and 63 years after the event. So definitely not breaking news, passes the 10 years test, and WP:SUSTAINED. This is all enough to pass WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS just does not apply to something that had retrospective coverage 50 years after the fact. WP:LASTING is not even required for an event to be notable (it's a proxy to assess recent events), but anyway, sources deem this visit to be a pivotal moment in Francoist Spain international image, since the Government was pretty much isolated until that era. MarioGom (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus exists in this discussion yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, this is a notable topic but this article was clearly generated using LLMs and Artificial intelligence tools. Sources are potentially just AI making it up, at best there would be a passing mention of the event in those books. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check any? MarioGom (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a somewhat important event from a public image standpoint for the Francoist dictatorship. Current content is verified by reliable sources which actually suggest a lasting commentary on the short trip.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]