Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guinea–Spain relations

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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea–Spain relations

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Just one of many unnecessary "Spain relations" pages. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: "unnecessary" is not a valid deletion rationale. I would also be interested to know how the nominator managed to accomplish WP:BEFORE in only four minutes, which is the time elapsed between his previous nomination and this one. Pilaz (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the philosopher has been mass nominating in over his/her head, the creation of this series of articles stems from the notion that Spain has notable relations with every single country on earth, which is clearly not well-founded either. An effort is underway to clean it up, and I think Guinea should be judged on its own merits. Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of every AfD discussion is a common understanding of why the nominator thinks the article should be deleted. If we can't understand why the nominator wants the article deleted, then keep !votes can't properly argue against deletion if the nomination is a moving, ill-defined target (and delete !votes have to come up with their own deletion rationales). Procedurally, this should be a speedy keep, and so far nobody has argued that "unnecessary" is a valid deletion rationale, so I stand by my !vote. No prejudice against renominating with a proper deletion rationale. Pilaz (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral.Delete. While I agree that the nom could have given a better rationale, the fact remains that the article cites no independent, reliable sources. I could not find any either. Therefore it fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC) No time to look at the new sources, so I can't give an informed opinion. Yilloslime (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: multiple reputable sources exist to satisfy WP:GNG (even if that's not the disputed by the nomination). Spain negotiates and later signs immigration agreement with Guinea [1],[2], [3]; Spain to pay 10M€ to Guinea and Gambia for repatriations of migrants [4]; 2019 High-level visit of the Minister of Interior of Spain to Conakry to reinforce cooperation against human trafficking, organized crime, and on immigration flows [5]; in 2020, Spain triples subventions to Guinea Conakry and other African countries to combat irregular migration, with increased funds going to the Guinean police [6]; 2021 visit of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Spain) to Guinea [7]; Spain condemns the 2021 coup in Guinea, calls on military to stand down [8], [9]. Both countries have embassies with one another and Guinea leaders have also visited Spain in the past, such as the visit of the Guinean PM to Spain in 1982 and 1984 [10], [11]. All these sources speak to the enduring, notable relations between these two countries. Pilaz (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources have been incorporated into the article. Pilaz (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No rationale given by the AfD submitter. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided and added by Pilaz show this meets GNG, which addresses the deficient nomination statement and the only delete !voter's concerns. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per sources provided by Pilaz. A start-class sort of article based on third party sources is perfectly attainable.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2021 (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.