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. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations/archive

Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute (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)

Too early to say is this is a major dispute, we are wp:notnews. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Mexico, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand if this dispute would have only been only a few days old, or if it was just covered in the news once or twice, but it has been disputed and mentioned for longer. I think its worth considering the notability of this article as this something that will be remembered as a notable dispute of 2025. Traintrak (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible to demonstrate future notability, as that involves citing sources from 2026 and beyond. We do not deal in what will be remembered. This is an encyclopaedia, not a crystal ball. It deals in what is already documented in depth by multiple independent reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. This has already been something that has been documented by multiple independent reliable sources. I am not referring to what lies in the future, but more so I am referring to what has already happened, which is a dispute of a name of a gulf. The extensive coverage from the sources also demonstrates notability. Traintrak (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - For now, redirect this information to Gulf of Mexico per suggestion below by Z. Patterson. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this another WP:RECENTISM and WP:TRUMPCRUFT? It's hard to tell anymore. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been 25 days and a recent social media campaign to lodge disputes about Google Maps handling of the issue has resulted in Google shutting down the dispute mechanism. Karl Horak (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - For now, redirect this information to Gulf of Mexico and discuss the naming dispute in that article, as we are still waiting for more reliable sources and we are WP:NOTNEWS. News information would be appropriate for Wikinews. Z. Patterson (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- Unlike say, the Spratly Islands dispute, there's no dispute over territorial claims here -- this is simply the U.S. deciding it doesn't want to use the internationally accepted name. That's not a dispute -- that's a unilateral choice to use an alternative name, and should be simply covered on the main Gulf of Mexico article in the same manner as we'd cover any other entity that has multiple names. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a dispute, if not a unilateral choice to xyz? Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 05:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A dispute is inherently multilateral, or otherwise it would not be a dispute, it's just a position statement. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's certainly a case for the article title choosing the wrong word, but if this were just plain name of the Gulf of Mexico—America how would you all then justify it not being a break-out subtopic of Gulf of Mexico#Name? Just like name of Austria is, for one of many examples. Because simply fixing the title with a page move eliminates your entire rationale. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it's not name of the Gulf of Mexico - America, and I'm not sure why you'd assume what my !vote would be if it were. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article needs to be rewritten if it’s going to cover the gulf’s naming more broadly. The article is currently glossing over centuries of history with a short summary, compared to what’s in Gulf of Mexico#Name. And if it ends up being an article about the naming overall, then many of the details in this article should be removed in favor of what’s already in Executive Order 14172, lest it become a WP:COATRACK. So we might be discussing a different article altogether. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, we'd be discussing the same article, and whether an administrator pushing the delete button on its edit history is part of reaching its goal. You've just laid out how it is not. Uncle G (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

            Indeed, I voted to merge below but would be open to splitting it back out at some point in the future, depending on how things play out in the real world. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Liberal 2600:8802:3900:49:7D42:FFE5:A602:B406 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Swatjester. See English Channel#Names for another example of a body of water with multiple names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, conversely, see name of Turkey for an analogue to a less disputatious name of the Gulf of Mexico—America where a presidential decree caused enough sourcing for a break-out sub-article. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in my eyes the recent news stories about Google Maps (including the threat of legal action against Google by the Mexican government) as well as the fact that the presidents of the US and Mexico are commenting on this personally (not just through spokespeople) warrant keeping this as a standalone article rather than redirecting to Gulf of Mexico. I also believe that what has occurred so far already exceeds the scope of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS (and certainly WP:TRUMPCRUFT), regardless of how the dispute will ultimately get resolved. Andrew11374265 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yeah, i completely agree -jakeyounglol (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep feels relevant enough to the the present moment. unlikely to stop soon. SDudley (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SDudley, after stopping in for my daily check while on break; I noticed one big thing: your template got deleted. Just thought you’d like to know. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Gulf of Mexico for right now. Open to reconsideration later. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 07:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now with Executive Order 14172, which along with Gulf of Mexico#Name cover much more, uh, ground. There isn't very much to merge that isn't already in Executive Order 14172. This drama has grown beyond the executive order itself, but for now that remains a decent place to hang any details off of. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a reader, I first read the short bit in the article Gulf of Mexico and followed the link here. The content here is good and encyclopedic, and contains information that would be too extensive for the other article, which is about the Gulf itself. While wp:notnews is of course relevant to consider, this event has generated sufficient news coverage in quality sources already and looks like it will persist as an issue of some (minor? sure, but so are lots of historical events that we cover) importance. Note that I'm not making a crystal ball argument, just noting that there's alreay a lot of quality sourcing, and this doesn't seem like something we'll end up deleting in the future.Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. -jakeyounglol (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as a place to centralize the dispute related content. At the same time, I would reduce the current Gulf naming content in Gulf of Mexico and the reactions & polling portions of Executive Order 14172 by moving much of that material here instead. Dumb as this whole issue is, I think it is already clear that the naming dispute has a life of its own, and I think it is better to provide it its own home. Dragons flight (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So far, the polls have been specifically about the President’s action (in relation to other executive actions), as opposed to asking about a naming preference in principle. That contrasts with the polling done regarding Denali/Mount McKinley, some of which took place before the executive order. Overall, I think this would have the effect of decentralizing content, duplication across multiple articles, because media outlets and publishers have been grappling with both renamings simultaneously. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jimbo Wales. The section at the Gulf of Mexico section is already borderline undue to include that much information given the body of water has a long and rich history beyond the past few weeks. Similarly, putting this content on the executive order page is not ideal and is US-centric. Having a central page and then summary-style sections on the other pages will be easier to manage overall. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragons flight. Centralize all of the information here. Coverage has been sustained since he made this announcement all so many years weeks ago. Also, keeping all of this information at Gulf of Mexico is undue weight. I'd even argue the couple paragraphs we have now is a bit too much. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This is not a distinct subject from Executive Order 14172 - the "dispute" consists of nothing more than the execution of that executive order. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jimbo’s reasonings; including but not limited to the unique information already present, and the ability to improve the article. I see A LOT of current event type articles end up at AfD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per The Almighty Founding Father’s reasonings. Perhaps a WP:SNOWBALL close now? RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is clearly a dispute, as demonstrated by the case of Associated Press being banned from the Oval Office for not changing the name (long-term usage vs unilateral declaration of a new name, international vs national usage). Other countries also do not recognize the name change. WP:Notnews and WP:Recentism are not really relevant, once a dispute gets going, it's a thing, whether this issue gets resolved during this administration or the next is not relevant. It will join articles like Persian Gulf naming dispute and Sea of Japan naming dispute, although it is unlikely to be as contentious as those. It needs a better title though. Hzh (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – per above Bakhos Let's talk! 15:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Jimbo, which isn't something I expected to say. charlotte ^👸♥ 15:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to have an easily located place where the dispute can (ultimately) be impartially and objectively presented and documented. -Filozofo (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jimbo 2600:4041:47C:4B00:55AA:1400:FD8D:33A9 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support the founder's view. When I saw the founder's view, the venue is feeling warm at this time. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 15:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems similar to the Freedom fries renaming. This is a good place to centralize information about the dispute. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom fries happened in isolation. I suspect it'll either result in either 80% of Executive Order 14172 being duplicated in this article or 80% of the passages in this article mentioning Denali/Mount McKinley in passing, because both renamings are highly related. It would be inaccurate to take either renaming out of that context. (This is like Renaming of geographical objects in the Russian Far East on a smaller scale. If he takes the renamings further, then I would support refashioning this article as a Renaming of geographical objects by Donald Trump or somesuch.) Minh Nguyễn ^💬 16:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: very high chance for the controversy to stay for a long time. MDCCCC (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:RECENTISM, and WP:TRUMPCRUFT. TH1980 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jimbo Wales HurricaneEdgar 02:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Definitely a major dispute, noting that the AP got banned from the White House over the issue. That said, there's an argument to Merge with Executive Order 14172 with appropriate redirects. Montanabw^(talk) 07:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hatfull (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Indonesia, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a mere 5 google news hits that are not SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References in the article are limited and the author of the article has limited contributions on Wikipedia. External search of notable references are also limited as mentioned by LibStar. I researched and can also confirm limited notability. --Trex32 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Seychelles 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)

Article primarily based on 3 primary sources from the Israeli government. 2 of these merely confirm no embassies, a third is a factoid that Seychelles allowed Israelis to visit during the pandemic. There appears to be no third party of these relations. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Israel. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The intro focuses on REFERENCES, while calling these sources. References are in an article. For these one does not have to search. AfDs should be focused on SOURCES, which are out there, per the golden NEXIST rule. A quick scan of the internet proves that there are third party sources, for example in Walla and Mako and Channel 13 of Israel. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the Channel 13 source seems an advertorial for Air Seychelles. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By now you have reacted to everyone who disagreed with you yet never convinced why this article should be deleted. There should have been a strong case in the intro. We did not see that. Instead, you shopped in the references, now shop in the sources. The problem is that sufficient unchallenged sources remain. And the listed articles are just a small sample. Maariv regularly covers the subject. For example: Maariv1 Maariv2 Maariv3 Maariv4. gidonb (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Reliable coverage is easily discoverable from a cursory web search. This topic is significant enough on its own to warrant an article; it just hasn't been expanded beyond a stub yet. Yue💌 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources did you find from your search? LibStar (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No doubt the article is poorly written and the sourcing is lacking, but that can be resolved without deletion. The topic meets WP:N and WP:RSs do exist for this topic. Eelipe (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article lacks citations to reliable, secondary sources, and I am not finding any either. Yilloslime (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by the GNG. The article is supported by multiple sources, identified by me in in the comment above and within the article itself. More sources exist. No compelling case for deletion has been made. The deletion rationale mentions sources, yet only critiques references. It selectively focuses on three references that support the article's content, while ignoring the Israel Channel 12 news item that supports notability. On the downside: the article is rather short, yet meets the threshold for viability. gidonb (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Channel 12 or 13? LibStar (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 12. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: proper WP:BEFORE should have been done FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of treaties of Turkey (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)

I am not really familiar with lists. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists but I am still not sure - for the lists in https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources should we just remove the ancient “uncited” tags? I mean if there are no red links do such lists need to be cited? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI - User:Nedim Ardoğa who created this article has been deceased since 2022. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see stopping notifications has been requested some years ago at https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/1476 but sorry I don’t know how to do that Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its just as valid as List of the United States treaties and the others like it. This is an obvious encyclopedic thing to have. A valid information list. Dream Focus 18:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But that article has a lot of cites whereas this one has none Chidgk1 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have a category for this. Azuredivay (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Navigational lists are always more useful than categories, since they allow more information, in this case the year the treaty was passed and which nations were involved other than Turkey. The rules clearly state you shouldn't delete one because another one exist. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates Dream Focus 03:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Help desk#Why do wikipedia lists need references? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then click on anything, see the same information is listed in the infobox of the article for the treaty, and copy the reference over if you think it needs it. There is nothing stated here other than the basic facts of the treaty's name, with a link to an article for it, what nations were involved, and the date it was signed. So no statements that anyone sincerely doubt and need a reference to convince them it was true. Dream Focus 14:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every category needs to be converted into an article. These types of articles only increase maintenance work for editors. Azuredivay (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dream Focus, it's encyclopedic and trwiki article has a lot of refs.Tehonk (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–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)

This was a redirect that was reverted. I could not find coverage in third party sources covering these relations. They don't even have resident embassies. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Estonia, and Serbia. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is expanded in Serbian version so with a bit of expansion on English side, it will provide more information about relations between these countries. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 07:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the sources in the Serbian article are primary government sources. The other 2 are from a database. Still fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per lack of reliable sources. Yilloslime (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (restore) to Foreign relations of Estonia#Europe. The topic may be notable, yet the article lacks sufficient context to stand on its own. Until it offers some content not covered elsewhere, it does not meet NOTDIR guidelines: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. The article serves as a REDUNDANTFORK of other articles. gidonb (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]