Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Grenada 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Grenada relations

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

fails WP:GNG. the relationship is merely recognition. No evidence of state visits, trade agreements, embassies or significant interaction. Keep voters must show evidence of actual bilateral relations in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Azerbaijan and Grenada do have a bilatral agreement and recognition and also they are proof from the link and the References. (Kylekieran (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

there are no agreements merely a communique. Please provide evidence of actual significant coverage which this relationship sorely lacks. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the proof http://en.trend.az/news/politics/1755803.html#popupInfo (Kylekieran (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

one extra article does not mean significant coverage and this article merely confirms they recognize each other. Having relations is not the same as notable relations. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge As with Armenia–Grenada relations, this minimal info could easily go in the articles on the diplomatic relations of the two countries. There's no history between them and they don't even have embassies in each others' countries. Do we want really articles on all 40,000-ish pairings of country relations? Or is this info better served by tables and lists in larger articles? I would say the tables. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not surprisingly, there's no evidence that the relationship between these small and geographically distant countries is notable. A Google search on Azerbaijan–Grenada returns almost no reliable sources, and most of the sources are about the initiation of a formal relationship about two years ago. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I favor retaining these "X-Y Relations" articles as a class if the nations are bigger than a bread box. Unfortunately, Grenada is not bigger than a bread box. Inadequate published sourcing available to maintain a piece on this topic. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't matter if Grenada is bigger than a bread box or not. This is a real relations with the two nations. (Kylekieran (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

real relations doesn't mean notable relations. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep'~~ - I saw many pages got not alot word, but not got the articles for deletion, but for this page it not fine for grow but other page is ok to be so little. example South Korea–United Kingdom relations. (Kylekieran (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - They both have a bilateral relations and also this page would get more and more detail now and in the future. (Jope2 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) striking out blocked sock puppet of Kylekieran. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — Jope2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per LibStar and Colapeninsula. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. No attempt has been made to prove any significant bilateral agreements saying these countries mean anything to each other, and coverage is non-existent. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relations were established between Grenada and Azerbaijan less than two years ago, but I see several sources covering the establishment of relations here,here,here, and here. For the limited time frame, I would say coverage is significant enough. Relations are developing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

first source is a blog and a direct copy of other news reports. The sources merely cover recognition of each other and confirm there is nothing else to this relationship like significant trade, state visits, or embassies. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in reliable sources is not extensive, and as Colapeninsula notes, tens of thousands of trivial articles of this sort don't improve an encylopedia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any way. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An 'article' which says nothing what-so-ever not derived from the title. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while even two small nations could have notable bilateral relations, this is clearly not one of those. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2012 (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.