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

Colombia–Latvia relations

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

Most of this article is based on primary sources. The only independent source is https://www.baltictimes.com/latvia_in_political_consultations_with_colombia_agrees_to_strengthen_cooperation/ . The relations lack aspects that typically make notable relations like resident embassies, significant trade, agreements and state visits. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Latvia, and Colombia. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage of this topic in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Yilloslime (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kumar Verma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is clearly not ready for mainspace but a new user has now move-warred to keep it in mainspace from draft.

Sourcing in the article is inadequate for a BLP and are mostly primary sources. Better to continue to incubate in draft, if not delete outright per the last AfD's consensus. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Canada. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last version of the article by the creator stated he was born in Kerala before another user changed it to Bihar without adding a source on the matter.[1] ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!I was the new user that "move-warred" to keep this article in mainspace. This article is based on the article for Escott Reid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escott_Reid, however it contains more sources.

All sources are vetted and from the Indian government (2 articles), neutral sources (1 article) or press (2 articles).

Beyond the article,

I moved the page to article, ghostofdangurrey moved it to draft, I removed an uncited sentence and moved it to article (which I assumed was the best way to work based on the details from the help articles). While I understand if there is room for improvement, gatekeeping editing and using words like move-warred (when I apologized for moving it following a comment), is an interesting way to moderate. Researchmoreorless (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the only thing to change since the last AfD is something that would fall under WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel like Detective Columbo right now. Wait, what was that last thing? Covering up an international assassination plot and getting you and your cute family deported and expelled from a country famous for its super nice diplomatic culture? I think that’s more than BLP1E. This is the stuff of which procedurals are made. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) I would not oppose a ~~murder~~ merger to Canada–India diplomatic row. Bearian (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be amenable to a merge to Canada-India diplomatic row. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom as there is no appropriate coverage to warranty an entry especially for a BLP and the information is already included in Canada-India diplomatic row FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada–India diplomatic row#2024 expulsions. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is fine; I don't believe there is any content worth merging that isn't already at the target. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Costa Rica, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Costa Rica. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere appropriate. Not seeing any urgent need to delete this? The sources seem adequate to support the content provided. If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London, not a single one has ended in delete (most have been redirected to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, a target that is on my list to improve), a couple have been kept and some merged or redirected to other targets. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find that useful list; could a column for extra information be added there? It seems to me to be useful and interesting that the Costa Rican embassy converted relatively recently from a "mission", which is supported by a reliable Times source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for that is on my list. Leave a note on the talk page with ideas for improvement so I remember them when I get to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended There have been many, many AfDs for diplomatic missions over several years and very few have been kept. AfD is clearly the appropriate place for each individual diplomatic mission to be assessed on notability. Not sure what's controversial here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London There have been many AfDs over several years for individual diplomatic missions globally, not just "in London". You may only be interested in missions in London but that's simply a mischaracterisation. You are also inaccurate in suggesting none have been deleted. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD AfD is an appropriate venue to decide a potential merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is fine, prod not so much, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some embassy articles have been deleted. So it is false to say very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources 3-10 confirm former ambassadors and are not about the embassy itself. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Genuine question, where exactly in WP:ORG do you consider this falls? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 1 and 2 are about the actual embassy. Source 1 is a database list. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was that intended to be in response to my question? Not seeing how it answers it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources do not meet that. There will be no further response. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you suggesting WP:NORG doesn't apply? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to clarify exactly which part of ORG was held to apply -- eg the standards for companies are entirely different from those for non-profits, but there's no specific guidance for embassies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If the embassy does not have stand-alone notability then the encyclopaedic content should be merged somewhere. Straight deletion will not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Normally we would merge this kind of article into a foreign relations page at Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. However, that article has not yet been created. It probably should be. Perhaps a move to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations? Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is trending toward a merge, but without a clearly defined article to merge it into, that makes it kinda tough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist for a merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Without a Merge target article identified, it looks like this AFD is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Normally we merge NN embassies and consulates to the corresponding bilateral relations article, which in this case would be Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. As you can see, that article doesn't exist yet. Potentially this article could be moved there and rewritten to reflect the broader topic. There is a British embassy in San José, Costa Rica, though it has no article, so there is likely enough to make a basic article. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations, which has now been created. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations per above. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]