Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Uruguay relations

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

another random combination. neither country has a resident ambassador, in fact Uruguay decided to close its embassy. coverage is mainly multilateral not bilateral [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=malaysia+uruguay+-argentina+-brazil&num=10&scoring=a&hl=en&sa=N&start=0]. yes the Uruguayuan president visited in 2007, and the usual double taxation agreement but these alone are not enough for notable relations. the 2 countries played a [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4EMWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LBUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2519,763495&dq=malaysia+uruguay+-argentina+-brazil Youth World Cup football match in 1997] and I know of at least 1 editor who thinks such info advances notability. clearly not. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Gotta disagree with LibStar on this one. As unlikely as co-operation between these two nations would seem, the agreements worked out on the Uruguayan President's visit less than two years ago ([http://www.kln.gov.my/?m_id=25&vid=552] shows that they're strenghtening their relationship. I wouldn't have believed it-- Uruguay isn't even on the Pacific. But it goes beyond training together on UN Peacekeeping missions, and this ain't no random pairing. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

: 99% of state visits are about expanding cooperation with the usual diplomatic cliches like would significantly contribute towards expanding the scope of bilateral cooperation. The Leaders also exchanged views on regional and international issues Would like to see some third party coverage of this. If the relationship is so notable, why doesn't Uruguay reopen its embassy? LibStar (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - every meeting of this sort (except perhaps this one) ends in an airy promise to "strengthen bilateral cooperation", and besides, the source mentioning the meeting breaches WP:GNG (it's not independent). Show me multiple, independent sources actually discussing "Malaysia–Uruguay relations", and I'll gladly change my vote. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence that the relations are notable; handle as Foreign Relations of X. JJL (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A shared multilateral membership and the promise of strengthening relations (as all countries seem to strive for) doesn't make this pair of nations stand out from any other. No secondary coverage of the topic, thus, fails WP:GNG. BlueSquadronRaven 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per users Biruitorul and BlueSquadronRaven. Not notable and whilst that only few Uruguayans or Malaysians in those bilateral nations. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As mentioned, there is little in the way of notable bilateral agreements, a closed embassy and the regular diplospeak about wanting to improve relations. Have you ever heard someone conclude a state visit saying "I hope our relations get worse"? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• You weren't following the news when W. was setting the tone for US foreign relations, were you? -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Contrary to what some allege, I try not to let my politics intrude on my !votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 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.