Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Botswana–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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana–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)

Fails WP:GNG. This article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article even admits the relations are very little "low presence of Spaniards in the country, little relevant bilateral trade, and reduced number of trips and high-level visits" and "There are no Spanish development cooperation programs or projects with Botswana" LibStar (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless this particular diplomatic relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources, our article that asserts there is a notable relationship is pure original research. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 28 October 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.