Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Haiti relations

:{{la|Chile-Haiti relations}} ([{{fullurl:Chile-Haiti relations|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Haiti relations}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article prodded and restored. It should be deleted again, as bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Estonia relations), and the only notable fact about this relationship is that Chile now has some troops deployed in Haiti - a condition noted (with numbers!) right here. Also, paragraph 2 reads like a news article (maybe because a troop deployment of one force out of a 44-nation force is news, not really encyclopedic material - cf. the Multinational force in Iraq: we do have an article on the Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq (because that was pretty big) but not, say, on the Danish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep this one. Deploying troops into a country is a pretty notable foreign relationship. Gigs (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Just to confirm: you would, then, support "Iraq-X relations" articles for these countries, and if they had no other relationship with Iraq (which is generally the case), have them read "X has (or doesn't have) diplomatic relations with Iraq. X sent Y number of troops there in 2003 as part of the Multinational force in Iraq; these departed in 200_"? Personally, while I wouldn't dismiss troop deployments as trivial, I would say the information is covered better (and adequately) elsewhere. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:::False dilemma. A small country getting troops from only a few other countries makes each contribution more notable than the individual contributions to a massive multinational coalition. The reason these deletions were broken out into individual AfDs were so that we could consider each unique situation. The standard I'm using for these is pretty low, but still much higher than some who seem to want to keep them all. Gigs (talk)

::::11 countries have >100 troops (arbitrary number) in Haiti, and 7 have >100 policemen there. And while it's true that 30 countries sent >100 troops to Iraq, theoretically at least, they too are worth mentioning in separate "relations" articles if this deployment is. Or we can just keep it at this... - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Chile sent in 650 peacekeeping troops. I'd say that makes it notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - notability established the usual way. Highly encyclopaedic topic. I see no compelling reason not to follow the standard practice here. WilyD 14:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Foreign relations of Chile and Foreign relations of Haiti and then Delete. What little referenced information is here does not warrant its own separate article, especially not one of a mass-created type that ignored any other places for inclusion such as the longer-established "Foreign relations of..." articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merging and deleting results in a copyright violation, and is not a permissable vote. WilyD 15:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• I support the principal though, this information is clearly so valuable that it belongs in two places not one. Hilary T (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• WilyD: ExCUSE me? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? --BlueSquadronRaven 15:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe he read the deletion policy, something you could try too. Hilary T (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Read and apply WP:GFDL. It's explained in simpler terms at Wikipedia:Merge and delete, I believe. There's simply no way to merge into two articles with a copyright violation. WilyD 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• You are now officially grasping at straws here, rather than making any real argument to save the article, you realize that, don't you? --BlueSquadronRaven 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• This statement appears divorced from reality. My own argumetn for keeping can be seen above. You're free to argue for keep, delete, merge, redirect or replace with poorly captioned photos of kittens. You're not free to suggest we engage in copyright infringement. You are, I guess, free to replace arguments about the article with snide personal remarks, as has been demonstrated. WilyD 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs a lot of work, nonetheless, the article is notable and has references to backup the information. Likeminas (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is among the articles of the sort that has content; I would say the same for the Iraq example-the governments involved decided to send troops , and such is not a trivial decision. DGG (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep-- sources are available to establish notability. A quick search in Google News shows the importance of this relation to Chile, [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-04/15/content_2833301.htm 1], a "significant portion" of the revenues from the state-owned copper company is now financing Chile’s peacekeeping operations in Haiti [http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/chile/090307/chile-reconsiders-military-spending-provision 2]. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep based on ambassadors, as well the items mentioned above. I can't imagine that Chile's government is so flush with money that they need to fund a presence in this fourth-world basket case. (If they need the equivalent of a Siberia for their diplomatic staff, there are far less expensive options available.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

: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.