Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Bilateral relations

[edit]

List of international trips made by Humza Yousaf

[edit]
List of international trips made by Humza Yousaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft Polygnotus (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Humza Yousaf, there isn't enough there to have a separate article Giuliotf (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Economics, Lists, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling this "fancruft" is rather preposterous and not a rationale for deletion. These sorts of lists are common for world leaders nowadays and I would consider a speedy close if you can't bother writing more than one inapplicable word. But I agree with Giuliotf that this is quite short and can be speedily merged to the main article – Premiership of Humza Yousaf#International visits is the obvious place for this. Reywas92Talk 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92 So you are saying this is important information that deserves its place in an encyclopedia? Can you explain why? Yousaf went on 4 short trips abroad, nothing of note happened, and he returned safe and sound. I see it as similar to overly detailed descriptions of Pokemon. It would be worth merging if there was something to merge, but there is nothing of substance here. Am I missing something? Was there a diplomatic incident I am unaware of, was he attacked by a rabbit, did he invent Cubism during one of these trips? Polygnotus (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So make that argument upfront, not some meaningless "fancruft." Not sure why you need to make up this random crap about Cubism. Category:Lists of diplomatic trips, Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state, and Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of government have dozens of these lists, and few of these folks got into diplomatic incidents. So I agree that 4 short trips don't need a standalone article, but yes, this is still certainly encyclopedic information relevant to his premiership and inclusion in that article is more than appropriate. I'm rather baffled by the suggestion that there's nothing of substance here: the Brussels trip is already covered at Premiership of Humza Yousaf#European Union, and working on climate issues and British–Irish collaboration are important actions taken by a premier. — Reywas92Talk 19:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92 British–Irish? I guess that would be worth reporting on. Yousaf is Scottish. Would it surprise you if I told you that those cats are full of unencyclopedic fancruft?
    If nothing out of the ordinary happened during those trips, and he just went there, shook a few hands and had a few conversations (which is his job) and then returned home without any incident, then what is there to report on for an encyclopedia, other than the bland fact that it happened? And we certainly don't need a separate article for what can be described in a sentence or two on the BLP.
    If he invented Cubism, got attacked by a rabbit, or got caught on a hot mic calling Kim Jong Il "adorable" which caused a diplomatic incident then at least there would be something to write about and then we could have a stand-alone article about the North Korean declaration of war against Scotland. Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "full of unencyclopedic fancruft" Okay, feel free to nominate them all for deletion. Sorry people think it's relevant to report what our political leaders do for their jobs. Bye! — Reywas92Talk 20:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is relevant to report what he does for his job, which is why I haven't nominated Humza Yousaf for deletion, but I don't see why we need a separate article about his 4 trips. If he had made 50 trips and there was a lot to say about each one and a lot of media coverage then WP:SPLITTING would be a good idea. I don't think that is the case here. Please see Wikipedia:Splitting#When_to_split. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I already agreed that a separate article is unnecessary... — Reywas92Talk 05:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even know where to start, if there are factual errors correct them. (and considering the ongoing situation that broke out yesterday additional information may need to be added almost daily). I don't see which of the 14 reasons for deletion would qualify here and have to question if it was just nominated because someone didn't like the conclusions people might be able to draw from the information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGoodEgg (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is good. Should not be deleted 74.135.165.130 (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy

[edit]
Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article looks like a recreation of the old article "Calls for the destruction of Israel", which was merged in January 2025 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination)). This article might as well be called "Iranian calls for the destruction of Israel" and thus it has the same problems as the previous one – it is a WP:POVFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel. Propose merge just like the previous article. VR (Please ping on reply) 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (creator). I respectfully disagree with the claim that this article is a "recreation" of anything. This article is focused on a different topic: it examines Iran's official policy and strategic posture toward the destruction of Israel, as characterized by a range of reliable secondary sources. It does not merely document rhetorical calls or statements made by various actors, but rather explores a long-term, very grounded policy, which includes several aspects: military doctrine, foreign relations, proxy activity, and nuclear strategy, all directed at eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. The content, sources, and framing are substantially different from the previous article, both in scope and intent. Therefore, it cannot be accurately described neither as a recreation nor as a POV fork. Rafi Chazon (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about Iran's relations with Israel, why can it not be at Iran-Israel relations? Why the POV framing of what is a complex issue and involves antagonism on both sides? VR (Please ping on reply) 09:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not disputing your whole argument, I just want to say that an article being very well researched and sourced isn't an inherent reason to keep and article if there's issues with it being an article in the first place. AssanEcho (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not just that the article is well-researched and properly sourced. The focus here isn’t on rhetorical "calls", it's on a sustained strategy, policy, or project, however one chooses to label it. Iran's actions: funding and training militant groups to encircle Israel, promoting suicide bombings, advancing a nuclear program aimed at threatening Israel, and broadcasting countdowns to Israel's destruction, are not isolated statements. they are deliberate steps within a long-term vision. And this isn't my interpretation of course, it reflects the view of leading scholars. As Afshon Ostovar wrote in a 2024 Oxford University Press publication, "The goal of destroying Israel as a Jewish entity is a cornerstone of the Islamic Republic of Iran's regional strategy." This is clearly a notable topic, with enough coverage and depth to merit its own article. Rafi Chazon (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was not commenting to dispute your argument though I have my own issues with it (You can read them on my multi merge reply), and to comment I do actually believe you and your sources that this a concrete goal of the Iranian Government. I was just mentioning that any article's high quality is not necessarily a reason to keep it in any AFD. AssanEcho (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This really does feel, based on the above, like a POV fork of Iran-Israel relations - @Rafi Chazon it's clear you put a lot of work into this and nobody is suggesting it's non-notable. It's just that the page that is specifically about the relationship between these two states is a better home for this material than a breakaway page with an eye-catching header. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge This is an overly specific page. It should be merged into either Legitimacy of the State of Israel or Foreign relations of Iran where it would be more at home. Genabab (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don’t see any reason to delete; the article seems both notable and detailed enough to stand on its own, with an appropriate link and summary in the general article. Jellyfish dave (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. POVFORK. Gotitbro (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Personally, I think Vice Regent’s deletion of the article was completely out of line. As for the merits of the article itself, the scope is clear and well-defined. There’s a substantial body of reliable news reporting and academic literature that directly addresses this issue. It’s certainly notable — it’s a topic that has drawn the attention of numerous scholars and analysts, and it's clearly of interest within the broader body of literature.
    This article has encyclopaedic value, as it demonstrates that a single paragraph on the Iran–Israel relations page wouldn’t come close to adequately covering the subject. The article should be retained. I’d encourage editors to prioritise collaborative solutions rather than tearing down articles that can be improved. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this AfD/merger proposal is "completely out of line". We could(and probably should) devote much more space on the Iran-Israel relations page than a singular paragraph to cover this subject. Originalcola (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Publisher/Source Type
Ostovar, Afshon (2024). Wars of Ambition Oxford University Press Academic
Maloney, Suzanne (2024). "The Middle East's Dangerous New Normal" Foreign Affairs Notable / Expert Commentary
Karsh, Efraim (2023). "The Israel-Iran conflict" Israel Affairs (peer-reviewed journal) Academic
Reda, Latife (2016). "Origins of the Islamic Republic's Strategic Approaches" Middle East Critique Academic
Freilich, Charles David (2018). Israeli National Security Oxford University Press Academic
Erdbrink, Thomas (2015) The New York Times Reliable Media
"Iran: Khamenei to lead Friday prayers..." (2020) The Guardian Reliable Media
Pileggi, Tamar (2018) Times of Israel Reliable Media
"Iran's Khamenei says..." (2021) France 24 Reliable Media
"Iran leader says Israel a 'cancerous tumour'" (2020) The Economic Times Semi Reliable Media
"Iran's Khamenei tells visiting Hamas chief..." (2024) Times of Israel Reliable Media
"Iran president sees 'countdown' to Israel's end" (2007) Reuters Reliable Media
"Iran's Rouhani calls Israel a 'cancerous tumor'" Al Jazeera Reliable Media
"Iranian President Repeats Calls..." (2023) Iran International Reliable Media
Goldberg, Jeffrey (2015) The Atlantic Notable / Expert Commentary
Hafezi, Parisa (2023) Reuters Reliable Media
Said et al. (2023-2024) Wall Street Journal Reliable Media
"Hamas received weapons and training from Iran..." (2023) The Washington Post Reliable Media
Fassihi, Farnaz (2024) The New York Times Reliable Media
Allin, Dana H.; Simon, Steven (2010). The Sixth Crisis Oxford University Press Academic
Sharma, Anu (2022). Through the Looking Glass Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group Academic
Magen, Ze'ev (2023). Reading Revolutionary Iran De Gruyter Academic
Reda, Latife (2016). (duplicate entry) Middle East Critique Academic
"Iranian protesters unveil clock..." (2017) The Independent Reliable Media
Azizi, Arash (2025) The Atlantic Notable / Expert Commentary
"Iranians Criticize Quds Day's Futility..." (2024) Iran International Reliable Media
Shamir, Shlomo Chabad.org Niche Media
Here’s a list of sources. Hopefully, these references make a strong case for the article’s importance. Cheers! KiltedKangaroo (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: no one is disputing this topic's WP:NOTABILITY, but rather it is a WP:POVFORK of an existing article.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Comment But as an aside Vice regent if we're here to collaborate on an encyclopedia, consistency should be applied across Wikipedia and it shouldn't matter whether the article is pro-Israel or anti-Israel. But when things come down to a consensus or what not, this clearly isn't the case. There is a plethora of anti-Israel articles and I don't see people calling for merging them, deleting them or WP:POVFORK.I'm not accusing you of this - I'm saying this is a big picture zoomed out issue that needs to be address for the betterment of Wikipedia.MaskedSinger (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Iran–Israel relations. We don't need more POV forks and one just has to read the lead to see that POV fork a perfect description. Zerotalk 09:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Iran-Israel relations, of which it's a WP:POVFORK; possibly also move some stuff to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. The argument that we should "look at recent events" to show why this narrow subset of that article supposedly needs to be its own article also shows that this article's creation is a matter of WP:RECENTISM, but even then, Iran-Israel relations is a more neutral article to cover this sort of thing and no valid reasons have been presented for why we would spin off a more POV copy of it. All the presented sources would be more accurately and thoroughly examined at that article - most of them are not specifically about Iran calling for the destruction of Israel but are about Iran / Israeli relations more generally, which means pulling out just that part and trying to make an article about it without covering the rest is misusing them as sources. --Aquillion (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with the previous editors here, mainly because this topic is way too broad and complex to squeeze into just a subsection of Iran–Israel relations or Legitimacy of the State of Israel. We're not just talking about rhetoric or ideology here – this covers military strategy, foreign policy, proxy wars, educational systems, and a whole lot more. Iran's approach to eliminating Israel is so systematic and institutional that it really deserves its own standalone article, especially given all the academic research and journalism we have on it. If we merge this somewhere else, readers won't get the full picture of how extensive and significant this issue actually is. Eliezer1987 (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see why today, of all days, that article should be deleted. If anything, it should be expanded in order to provide even more background information.--Edelseider (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why Israel attacking Iran equates to needing an independent article about Iran calling for an end to Israel when we already have Iran-Israel relations. This appears not to be a policy based reason to retain an article. Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article presents a well-sourced, analytically distinct examination of Iranian state policy toward the destruction of Israel. Far from being a content fork, it addresses a clearly delineated and academically acknowledged phenomenon that spans military doctrine, proxy engagement, nuclear strategy, and ideological incitement. To reduce this topic to a subsection elsewhere would obscure its scope and scholarly relevance. At a time when Wikipedia must uphold its responsibility to present verifiable knowledge with intellectual integrity, removing such a page risks erasing a central dimension of contemporary Middle Eastern geopolitics and signals a troubling asymmetry in editorial standards. שלומית ליר (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multi Merge Honestly I don't see much in this article that necessitates it be it's own article and not be merged in with Calls for the destruction of Israel, Iran-Israel relations, or even New antisemitism (as much as I personally don't care for the articles concept myself). This article's existence is smelling of recency bias due to the current catastrophe in the middle east, and while this doesn't have much to do with this topic it does seem to be mildly biased against Iran by not mentioning any international or internal support for the various actions, policies and intions (though I do believe 100% that every example of dissent and distain is real).
AssanEcho (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article offers a well-documented and clearly focused analysis of Iran’s official policy aimed at the destruction of Israel. Merging this topic into a broader article would dilute its significance and obscure a distinct, long-standing pillar of Iranian state policy. The sustained calls for Israel’s destruction by Iran’s leadership, their integration into official doctrine, and their geopolitical consequences warrant focused, in-depth treatment that a subsection cannot adequately provide. This is not a minor aspect of Iranian politics—it is a central theme with global ramifications, deserving its own dedicated space for clarity, documentation, and analysis. Deletion would set a dangerous precedent of removing uncomfortable historical realities from Wikipedia simply because they are unpopular. Cfgauss77 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No "uncomfortable historical realities" would be removed due to (un)popularity, or at least from what I can see I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Originalcola (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nobody is suggesting that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom & keep article The article's scope and content look pretty different from the previous. Also: this here separate article lets us have a deeper level of details/sources that can't be properly contented at the proposed merge target. Retain this well sourced article, which cannot be considered a fork, as its subject matter is highly specific. XavierItzm (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Iran-Israel relations and Legitimacy of Israel to avoid WP:POVFORK. The canvassing mentioned upthread is quite worrying. Lewisguile (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Having gone through and edited this article significantly just now, I think it is essentially the same article as before the merge. It also has major problems. Some whole sections are/were sourced to a single writer, and this makes the POVfork issues worse. It's also an odd focus, when we do t usually focus on inter-state grievances in this sort of detail. Should we, for instance, have an article Israeli rhetoric on Iran? Or Al-Qaeda's policy on the destruction of America? Because that's currently what this feels like—a one-sided take on something that, while it's obviously true, is better placed within context elsewhere rather than feeling like it's written with an agenda. Lewisguile (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, as of the posting of this reply I don't believe anyone replying with arguments opposed to merging or deletion are canvassers or writing with bad faith, even if I think some arguments are more emotional than rational personally. AssanEcho (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is common, in cases where an AfD centers around a PoV fork to get a lot of editors saying they want to keep because the topic is notable. We know the topic is notable. Because there is a whole other article on it. Nobody wants to delete Iran-Israel relations. But, frankly, when Israel starts bombing a regional enemy and suddenly a POV fork appears that wants to assert that really it's the enemy's fault there's a pretty serious WP:NPOV concern that makes such a POV fork rather problematic. Reliable information should be retained on the appropriate destination page but this appears to be a POV push. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point re: "notability". Lewisguile (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The off-wiki canvassing and abuse of process is also concerning. Not surprised its happening at anti-wikipedia accounts on Musk's X (who's views about our project we know pretty well). Gotitbro (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That will hopefully have minimal impact as the closer will discard any !votes from non-extended confirmed editors. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Iran–Israel relations - As in the previous discussion the issue here isn't notability, that really isn't in dispute. I don't think this article is a recreation of the previous article has severe NPOV issues as in the previous deletion, but I think it would be better served merged into this existing article especially since this topic is so intertwined with Iranian-Israeli relations. I don't know if this is a POVFORK but I don't think the article should stand either way. Originalcola (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article deletion as proposed by OP. Article seems a decently well-written (with scholarly/academic treatment of the subject) on a major subpart of Iranian national policy for multiple decades. Seems well explicated for an encyclopedic treatment, well sourced, and is sufficiently large to be inadequately covered inside another, more general, article on calls for the destruction of Israel. This argues for keeping it, as a contribution to the expansive encyclopedia of human knowledge, Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Serbia relations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Iceland–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A redirect that was undone. There are minimal relations between these 2 countries, and definitely not covered in any detail in third party sources. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Merello

[edit]
Giacomo Merello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual does not pass WP:GNG or fulfill the requirements for WP:BIO as this person has "not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Coverage of this individual in media is routine or passing mentions. Some of the sources do not appear reliable or particularly independent.

The argued notability of this person by editors that have removed prior tags appears to hinge on certain "honors" such as the "Order of the Eagle of Georgia" and the conception of "Lord Leslie" while these honors might sound significant it appears that honors like these can apparently be acquired without much difficulty (according to a source that was previously cited in the text by one of the contributors and later removed).

Another concern is that a number of the key contributors of this article appear to be very close to the subject including HearldicFacts and Mediascriptor. Another key contributor was previously blocked for sockpuppettry Judasith1234 which is not a good sign. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only passing coverage in low-quality sources. Worth mentioning that HeraldicFacts added a picture to the article which was uploaded by Judasith1234 to Commons 19 minutes prior, so another likely sockpuppet.
— Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Arcaist - I will not take a position on this page retention, however just to clarify yours and @Naayn comment on "sockpuppetry", it was a misunderstanding of 6 months ago, which was opened in a sockpuppetry debate and resolved through a discussion and a final decision of several Admins, that ended with the deletion of user Judasith1234. It is unfair and incorrect to motivate a further deletion proposal based on this specific topic as it was already discussed and resolved in full previously. HeraldicFacts (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The subject meets WP:GNG through multiple non-trivial, independent sources covering his diplomatic and cultural roles. While some honours may appear unusual, they’ve been reported by independent media and involve internationally recognised institutions, not self-promotion. Rather than deletion, improvement is the constructive path forward, especially given existing sources and the subject’s international footprint. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Giacomo Merello clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Multiple reliable, independent secondary sources provide significant coverage of his career and roles, beyond routine mentions. Concerns about the subject’s honors and the contributors’ proximity do not negate the existence of independent sources demonstrating notability. Below, I outline the sources and relevant policies supporting retention of the article. Roles and impact: the coverage centers on his notable roles – as a Special Economic Envoy of Antigua and Barbuda, as a legal expert in digital assets and legal heraldry, examples 1. https://expatliving.sg/antigua-and-barbuda-citizenship-by-investment-and-coat-of-arms/Expat Living - this interview is a secondary source (Merello is the interviewee, with the magazine providing context) and offers significant biographical detail, demonstrating coverage in an independent publication; 2. https://www.henleyglobal.com/events/henley-partners-presents-celebration-caribbean about his activities as diplomat; 3. https://www.vietnam.vn/en/viet-nam-truoc-nga-re-tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon about a seminar held for the State Bank of Vietnam. 4. https://antigua.news/2025/05/17/bridging-oceans-and-opportunities-giacomo-merello-on-promoting-antigua-and-barbuda-in-singapore-and-in-asia/ Antigua News - this is far beyond a trivial mention – it’s a full profile of his activities and impact, published by an independent news source (not a press release); 5. Multiple other independent articles about him from VIR and Malta Invest;  6. https://www.liveranionline.com/immagini/118224/retrospettiva-marcella-bella-cantante-con-il-figlio-giacomo-merello-nel-1985 ; https://dilei.it/spettacolo/marcella-bella-figlio-giacomo-singapore/1279204/ ; https://www.wemusic.it/marcella-bella-chi-sono-e-cosa-fanno-nella-vita-i-figli-carolina-tommaso-e-giacomo/ are all articles directly about him in connection to his very notable singer mother Marcella Bella, and not just as a routine mention, these are all independent secondary sources and are not "routine mentions" but the subject is the main topic. These roles have been covered in context by third-party sources, indicating he is a “significant, interesting, or unusual enough” person to deserve an encyclopedia entry, as per WP:GNG. The titles on their own may not necessarily meet by themselves WP:BIO, but in connection with all the rest, they definitely support and they have multiple mention in secondary sources on their own, like Debrett's, RSN, and Royal House of Georgia. On the Scottish Feudal Baronies there is currently in place an editing war which makes deletion based on that also shaky and not well thought. COI claim is vague and per WP:COI policy, an article should not be deleted solely due to who edited it, especially if just to fix objective links and factual elements, and any promotional tone wascleaned up by neutral editors in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Mediascriptor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Peru, Nagoya

[edit]
Consulate General of Peru, Nagoya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. Sources 2-8 merely confirm who the consul was. Lacking SIGCOV about this actual consulate to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a notification, I've no issue one way or the other, but instead of deletion I would hope that a redirect to the embassy's page would be better. A bit unrelated but I also wanted to know whether the idea of merging ambassadorial lists to their respective embassy articles is better than a standalone article for the former, not only for this particular case or country in general but for a number of them as I notice that a number are outdated and both article types could very well be improved that way and make for easier reading. I'd be happy to take care of both aspects. AlejandroFC (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and followed through with my suggestion. I would still appreciate feedback on the other idea. AlejandroFC (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was Redirected but I'd like to hear more opinions on this outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, sorry about that. I'll still vote for a redirect. All the best. AlejandroFC (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations&oldid=1295420686"