Deletion of Germany–Uruguay relations

Comment: Article has expanded since nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany%E2%80%93Uruguay_relations&diff=291715277&oldid=291144864 1 and sources have been added. Uruguay's history is a |neglected topic in this encyclopedia and expansion is welcome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: This article has come a long way since it was nominated for AfD, but I still don't see any evidence that the topic of Germany-Uruguay relations meets threshold of , namely that it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". If no one is writing about this subject in detail, we shouldn't be either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee and Battle of the River Plate have their own articles; why duplicate content in inferior form here, just to satisfy some claim of an "Uruguay-Germany relationship"? (And in any case, these were far more a function of UK-Germany relations than of Uruguay-Germany relations.) Of course, the German government source can't be used because it breaches . And Richard, have you ''ever'' read ? Note: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit its flow... The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text... Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:LAYOUT)

Comment: Nothing to this but a |directory listing of missions. A downed ship is hardly a basis for international relations. No coverage of the topic available
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)