Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Peru relations (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Peru relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted via AfD back in 2010 and recently recreated. (I'm not an admin and can't see the original version, but I don't think the current version is close enough to qualify for WP:CSD G4.) Anyway, the arguments in the original AfD still apply. Cited sources are all either government websites and/or fall well short of constituting direct, in depth coverage of these countries' relations. Yilloslime (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not the same as the 2010 version. This is purportedly a translation of an article started on the Spanish Wikipedia in 2014. It covers the same ground, but it's not a strict translation. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough sources and diplomatic relations pages are a standard on the Wiki. Styx (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that relations exist is not enough to justify existence of a stand alone article. And there are not enough sources. Yilloslime (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Australia, and Peru. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete There are some relations like a free trade agreement. However, article is based mainly on primary sources hence my weak delete !vote. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep there are things which we can find about that in Google, article needs to be improved. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: OECD and other non Peru/Australian governmental coverage should be considered reliable and independent sigcov regarding the relatively recent Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and bilateral PAFTA (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:50, 2 December 2023 (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.