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

Czech Republic–Nauru relations

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

Relations with a very tiny country of Nauru are usually very small. The interaction is a small amount of trade. But no other aspects that typically make notable relations like state visits, embassies, agreements. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Czech Republic, and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the "Diplomatic missions" section (and redirect page) to Foreign relations of the Czech Republic. Additionally, the "Economic relations" section could be merged to Economy of Nauru#Trade. Nil🥝 01:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Nil. There is good information, but right now it doesn't seem to need its own article. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per suggestion by Nil. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Economy of Nauru#Trade per Nil. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nil's suggestion - there is useful information here, but the article's content is currently too small to warrant its own entry, and it's unlikely to be able to be expanded further. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Chebet Cherwon

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG as I believe the sources in the article constitute routine coverage for a diplomat rather than represenging significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to WP:NPOL providing presumed notability for ambassadors, sources already on the page pass WP:GNG, such as: [1][2][3][4]. "Routine coverage" is not mentioned in WP:GNG, and the idea that non-notable people get frequent "routine" news coverage baffles me. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Kenya, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ike Lek. Dsp13 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The four references Ike Lek puts forth are mostly routine coverage of the subject. Sources one and two are by the same author in the same work about the subject's visit with Pope Francis and a few months later her reflections about him after he died. There are a couple of lines about the subject in these but it's mostly quotes from her discussing Pope Francis. Sources three and four are routine coverage. IMO this article doesn't pass GNG. The main question is, does NPOL cover ambassadors the way NPROF covers academics; in the latter the subject doesn't need to meet GNG. It's been my understanding that NPOL provides notability to elected officials assuming there is WP:SIGCOV of them (which there usually is), although it can be in local sources, which might not be allowed for a regular GNG pass. I've mostly seen arguments that WP:NPOL does not cover ambassadors although the language of the policy isn't completely clear about that. Even if it did cover ambassadors, they will still need SIGCOV, which this article does not seem to have for the subject. However, I like the article and it would be good to have more women from Africa covered here. Unfortunately I couldn't find any additional sources. Nnev66 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Ambassadors aren't covered under WP:NPOL. This is the widely held view at AFD. The articles in evidence are trivial puff pieces over very minor events. There isn't any in-depth discussion of her career in a wider context. I'm not seeing a single source that would count towards GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, there is no presumed or inherent notability for ambassadors. Lacking coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Ghanem

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

Community consensus has shown that ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass to notability. Searching in google news ["George Ghanem" lebanon] yields nothing. Source 1 is not SIGCOV. Source 2 is primary. Source 3 doesn't appear to cover this person. source 4 appears to be about Qatari ambassador. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3 appears to be mis-linked. Have you actually gained access to source 4, or are you just assuming it does not have SIGCOV? Ike Lek (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access on source 4? I am going on the article title. Open to it being possible SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access yet. I'm not claiming it is SIGCOV, just asking a clarifying question before I go through to trouble of trying to get access. Ike Lek (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search brought up various press releases by the Government of Malaysia regarding aid programs and such, but no secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find independent secondary coverage of subject, and per nom ambassadors are not inherently notable. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – could not find any secondary & independent sources with substantial coverage – Aza24 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Violates WP:NOTPROMO as it reads like a CV.

Editor1769 22:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2025 (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.

Ghassan El Khatib

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

As community consensus has shown, ambassadors are not inherently notable. The first source is a directory listing, the other 2 are dead. The 2 google news hits are small mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While ambassadors may not be inherently notable, they are presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. If you wish to contest this, either explain why it would not apply to ambassadors, or make an RfC to seek community consensus to have it changed. Most definitions of what a politician is would apply to ambassadors, who hold a national position. Additionally, the dead link indicates coverage. – Ike Lek (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is very clear, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humaira Hasan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Yahya Alkharejah. But you keep insisting there is inherent notability when no one agrees with you. Where is your consensus? LibStar (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My consensus is WP:NPOL, specifically this revision [5], which is a higher level of consensus than AfD. Bringing up previous AfDs is a very "other stuff doesn't exist" argument.

Also, I very clearly specified that I was not claiming inherent notability, so I would appreciate if you struck that. Ike Lek (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
inherent, presumed notability...same thing. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Very much not the same thing. Ike Lek (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfDs (especially recent ones) are highly relevant as they show community consensus. You even said consensus can change, yes it can, but not evidenced in recent AfDs. You even tried an unsuccessful deletion review to desperately salvage your viewpoint on inherent/presumed notability. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I advice you to read WP:CONLEVEL. If you believe there is consensus against the current wording of policy, then RfC is the way to address that. Ike Lek (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated here "If you want to debate notability standards, I advise you to bring it to a policy talk page where other editors who are interested in the subject matter can weigh in. Editors interested in developing policies and guidelines are unlikely to see an AFD discussion." LibStar (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referencing a policy. You are referencing one editor's statement. Ike Lek (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that supports my claim anyway. If you want to change policy, you should take it to RfC or the talk page. You are the one proposing a change and claiming that AfDs establish consensus for developing policies. I don't know why you would quote that, as it supports the notion that your previous AfDs do not impact consensus on policy. Ike Lek (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no presumed notability for ambassadors, no matter how hard you try to wpin it or use deletion reviews to overturn delete decisions determined through consensus. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors do not have presumed notability and the subject fails GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Note that ambassadors are not presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL - I question the attempt to sneak in a novel policy interpretation, and don't even understand the reasoning. Here is NPOL bit by bit:

Politicians and judges Ambassadors are neither politicians nor judges as such. Some are, many are not.

who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office Ambassadorship is not a political office.

or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Of course, they have not done ethis either.

This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. They are not elected to offices.

Major local political figures They are not local political figures.

who have received significant press coverage. Some have, many have not.

Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how you claim ambassadors don't hold a political office. Ambassadors are absolutely politicians by nature of holding a political office. Can you cite a definition of politician that would exclude ambassadors? Ike Lek (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Geschichte's analysis of ambassador notability, and am slightly confused as to why @Ike Lek is citing a specific revision of WP:NPOL from 2015 containing since-removed ambassador specific material to support their assertion of consensus, while also referencing current wording of policy when discussing WP:CONLEVEL. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing when consensus was achieved that ambassadors are not excluded from WP:NPOL, and then making a WP:CONLEVEL argument for past AfDs not being able to establish a consensus overruling a policy. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Geschichte's analysis of NPOL and a lack of sources for GNG. Politicians participate in policy-making processes which is not true for most diplomats and ambassadors. Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors have no standing of presumed notability at NPOL. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]