- 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 The preponderance of policy based arguments support keeping the arguments. The consensus seems to be that the article meets our inclusion criteria. Chillum 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Bangladesh–Slovakia relations
AfDs for this article:
- Bangladesh–Slovakia relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is just the blatant synthesis of two disparate stories about visits between diplomatic representatives, one of which lasted 35 mins while the other was an ambassador "calling on" a foreign minister (which is their job, incidentally). These two events have been cobbled together to suggest some form of meaningful "relations". One source (though its reliability is questionable anyway) draws attention to the "very paltry trading between the two countries" and almost all of the "cooperation" between the two countries is "potential" or "proposed" not "actual" or "real". There are no "relations" here. Tellingly, that's exactly what the first AFD found and the article was deleted. It was unilaterally recreated by the same author who has created dozens of these nonsense Bangladesh-X relations articles suggesting he has received "approval" from an admin. Though that is exactly why we have WP:DRV, this was stealthily recreated without addressing any of the original problems. Possibly a G4 candidate but let's grind it out. St★lwart 111 00:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete the "recreated" version was hardly an improvement from the deleted version nor address issues in the original AfD. and Stalwart is right that WP:DRV should have been used if the article creator was not happy. also note an admin's comment when this article was recreated in October 2014:
(cur | prev) 20:40, 3 October 2014†Randykitty (talk | contribs)†(Randykitty moved page Bangladesh–Slovakia relations to User:Nomian/Bangladesh–Slovakia relations over a redirect without leaving a redirect: NOT sufficiently better sourced) LibStar ( talk) 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Â B E C K Y S A Y L E SÂ 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Â B E C K Y S A Y L E SÂ 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Â B E C K Y S A Y L E SÂ 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep should be kept according to general notability guidelines. The article was significantly improved after the deletion in the last AFD. Bangladesh Prime Minister paid an official visit to Slovakia in 1999. There is also significant trade relations between the two countries. Nomian ( talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment When it was deleted based on the outcome of the previous AFD, I asked Randykitty, the closing admin, to userfy the article. She said to have it approved by an admin before moving to the mainspace. After expanding the userfied article, I asked The Bushranger to check it and he said it looked alright to him, and then I moved it to the mainspace. Randykitty was not aware of the approval by The Bushranger, so she deleted it again. But after her discussion with The Bushranger, I moved it back to the mainspace. Nomian ( talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- can you please provide diffs to this?
LibStar (
talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- An admin's role at AFD is to judge consensus and determine how a discussion should be closed. Was The Bushranger aware that the article had been deleted as the result of an AFD before "approving" the unilateral overturning of that AFD by the author who created the article? If anything, the new version is worse than the original (from what I can remember of it). The sourcing is completely disingenuous.
This source looks good until you realise that it is a word-for-word copy of
this source which is actually a primary-source press release. Neither is a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. Given the genesis of that source, I believe the independence and legitimacy of
this source should probably be questioned also. The remaining two sources are clearly press releases issued by various government agencies. In fact, the first source was authored by the
News Agency of the Slovak Republic ("Autor: TASR"). So there is likely not a single independent source available for these so-called "relations". How it could possibly meet
WP:GNG remains a mystery.
St★lwart
111 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here is the diff where The Bushranger said
"It looks alright to me". He was also aware that it was deleted via an AFD.
Nomian (
talk) 14:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Read the rest of his comment. People don't consider subjects like this to be notable if they are original research, can be verified only by primary sources and don't come close to meeting our general notability guidelines. St★lwart 111 15:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here is the diff where The Bushranger said
"It looks alright to me". He was also aware that it was deleted via an AFD.
Nomian (
talk) 14:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- An admin's role at AFD is to judge consensus and determine how a discussion should be closed. Was The Bushranger aware that the article had been deleted as the result of an AFD before "approving" the unilateral overturning of that AFD by the author who created the article? If anything, the new version is worse than the original (from what I can remember of it). The sourcing is completely disingenuous.
This source looks good until you realise that it is a word-for-word copy of
this source which is actually a primary-source press release. Neither is a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. Given the genesis of that source, I believe the independence and legitimacy of
this source should probably be questioned also. The remaining two sources are clearly press releases issued by various government agencies. In fact, the first source was authored by the
News Agency of the Slovak Republic ("Autor: TASR"). So there is likely not a single independent source available for these so-called "relations". How it could possibly meet
WP:GNG remains a mystery.
St★lwart
111 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- can you please provide diffs to this?
LibStar (
talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin and other voters User:Stalwart111 has been repeatedly removing the sources and blanking the articles (diff: [1]) just because the sources became dead links but they should know that according to WP:Link rot sources cannot be removed even if they are dead. The links were properly running when I added them in those articles and a google search for those news titles can prove that those sources exist. I feel Stalwart111 is competent enough to understand all the policies of Wikipedia and I'm requesting them to stop removing the sources and blanking the article since this is not conducive to maintain a pleasant editing environment. Nomian ( talk) 15:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't "blank" any of the articles, I added information and I fixed the grammar and other errors - you reverted those edits when you blindly (without looking at them) cut-paste reverted my edits. I've walked you through the process of having those sources considered (where they actually exist) but you
don't seem to be listening. Your accusations without evidence are a blatant
personal attack - I request you strike them.
St★lwart
111 15:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Diff is already given which clearly show you have removed the sources and blanking the article.
Nomian (
talk) 15:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- That term doesn't mean what you think it means and your attacks are based on a misreading of policy. St★lwart 111 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Diff is already given which clearly show you have removed the sources and blanking the article.
Nomian (
talk) 15:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't "blank" any of the articles, I added information and I fixed the grammar and other errors - you reverted those edits when you blindly (without looking at them) cut-paste reverted my edits. I've walked you through the process of having those sources considered (where they actually exist) but you
don't seem to be listening. Your accusations without evidence are a blatant
personal attack - I request you strike them.
St★lwart
111 15:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:GNG, recreation seems to be approved by an admin as shown in the diff. -- Zayeem (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
-
Zayeem, GNG requires secondary sources. All of the sources available are primary sources. And while bold re-creation with the approval of an admin is possible, this was done of the basis of dishonest sourcing and a disingenuous claim that previous concerns had been resolved. Had the admin in question been aware of that, I imagine he would have suggested this go to DRV where consensus to re-create on the basis of those sources would have been unlikely.
St★lwart
111 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Stalwart111, I think there's only
one source which could be termed as primary but others from The Daily Star, Daily Sun, Priyo News are purely secondary and independent sources. Also, I just checked the
diff again and going with the discussion thread, it seems Nomian did inform the admin about the previous AfD. Is there anything I'm missing? --
Zayeem
(talk) 11:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- This source is a word-for-word copy of this press release (also included as a "source"). It's unclear how independent the BSS is (the credit for the other Star article) but it's the "national news agency" of Bangladesh, run by the "Prime Minister's former Press Secretary" so, you know... It's not clear what Priyo is or whether it is reliable but it looks like a collection of user-submitted primary sources. Regardless, the credit is to the same BSS. In among those, the only one that looks independent (the grammatical errors suggest its not a reprinted press release) is the Sun which talks about plans and maybes but actually acknowledges no relationship exists. So the only one that might be okay as a source contradicts the premise of the article and the others (on which notability hangs) don't seem close to independent. In general terms, one admin can't unilaterally overrule another. St★lwart 111 13:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Stalwart111, I think there's only
one source which could be termed as primary but others from The Daily Star, Daily Sun, Priyo News are purely secondary and independent sources. Also, I just checked the
diff again and going with the discussion thread, it seems Nomian did inform the admin about the previous AfD. Is there anything I'm missing? --
Zayeem
(talk) 11:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Zayeem, GNG requires secondary sources. All of the sources available are primary sources. And while bold re-creation with the approval of an admin is possible, this was done of the basis of dishonest sourcing and a disingenuous claim that previous concerns had been resolved. Had the admin in question been aware of that, I imagine he would have suggested this go to DRV where consensus to re-create on the basis of those sources would have been unlikely.
St★lwart
111 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - What went on between Slovakia and Bangladesh anyway? Jackninja5 ( talk) 11:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 03:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 03:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- see WP:VAGUEWAVE, While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. LibStar ( talk) 00:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per GNG. WP:SYNTH is about how we report what the sources say, not whether we report what the sources say. -- 99of9 ( talk) 00:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, synthesis is about bringing disparate facts together to draw a conclusion not drawn by the sources. Like adding one minor event to a routine meeting and combining those with someone's plans to do something to make 42. St★lwart 111 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP remains the only place where you can read about these "relations". It remains an invention of Wikipedia. St★lwart 111 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - What a surprise, another (disruptive) nomination of an X-Y Relations article involving Bangladesh — at least six in the past two weeks, probably more, by the same two editors. Rationale for the sixth time: Bangladesh is one of the most populous nations on earth, with a population bigger than that of Russia. Its foreign relations are the subject of scholarly study. This is not intended as a free-standing article, per se, but rather as a sub-page of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. Carrite ( talk) 02:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- you've recycled this several times "is one of the most populous nations on earth, with a population bigger than that of Russia". the population in itself does not give Bangladesh a free pass to a bilateral article to any other country. does it now mean Bangladesh-Guatemala, Bangladesh-Nauru is now notable?
LibStar (
talk) 02:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- And despite silly claims of "disruption" (the same baseless accusation levelled by the creator; yawn!), the nomination of these articles has been explained extensively. These were all created in a very short space of time by the one WP:SPA in an effort to populate a template that lists all of these non-notable sub-stubs. As above, WP remains the only place you can read about this synthesis of ideas. No other medium has given these supposed "relations" coverage. All that can be brought forward by way of coverage is coverage of disparate events and comments sewn together to form a patchwork quilt. In this case, almost entirely primary sources. As a result, inclusionists have only one port to which they can sail and that is WP:BIGNUMBER. St★lwart 111 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- you've recycled this several times "is one of the most populous nations on earth, with a population bigger than that of Russia". the population in itself does not give Bangladesh a free pass to a bilateral article to any other country. does it now mean Bangladesh-Guatemala, Bangladesh-Nauru is now notable?
LibStar (
talk) 02:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GNG and the two cooperate in international forums. There was even a visit at the level of the prime minister.-- Rainmaker23 ( talk) 03:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- one leader visit in over 20 years of relations actually shows how important these relations are if they can only make the effort to do one state visit.
LibStar (
talk) 03:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Slovakia has only existed for 22 years. More significantly, there is a 100 million dollar trade relationship.-- Rainmaker23 ( talk) 02:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- one leader visit in over 20 years of relations actually shows how important these relations are if they can only make the effort to do one state visit.
LibStar (
talk) 03:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Countries with regular bilateral relations have leader visits every 2-3 years. I would have expected at least 5 visits in 20 years, if relations started 2 years ago then I would understand no visits. 100 million is pathetically low, for trade given that Bangladesh exports USD 30 billion a year. That is trade with Slovakia is worth 0.3% of Bangladesh total export. Or put it another way , 50% of Bangladesh exports go to the European union including Slovakia, which means $15 billion is exported. The fraction of that sent to Slovakia is less than 0.6%. These are insignificant numbers. LibStar ( talk) 11:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment; notability can be measured in different relative terms. 0.3% of total exports is not a negible number, if 100% is 30 billion USD. 100 million USD is a large amount of money, no matter how you twist and turn things. -- Soman ( talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all of these "relations" AfDs. Common activities, e.g., masses of merchants trading (a la "economics") or political bureaucrats junket-jetting around the world to blitherblather into microphones, do not constitute notably distinct activities warranting ABC-XYZ relations articles. Pax 20:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 The preponderance of policy based arguments support keeping the arguments. The consensus seems to be that the article meets our inclusion criteria. Chillum 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Bangladesh–Slovakia relations
AfDs for this article:
- Bangladesh–Slovakia relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is just the blatant synthesis of two disparate stories about visits between diplomatic representatives, one of which lasted 35 mins while the other was an ambassador "calling on" a foreign minister (which is their job, incidentally). These two events have been cobbled together to suggest some form of meaningful "relations". One source (though its reliability is questionable anyway) draws attention to the "very paltry trading between the two countries" and almost all of the "cooperation" between the two countries is "potential" or "proposed" not "actual" or "real". There are no "relations" here. Tellingly, that's exactly what the first AFD found and the article was deleted. It was unilaterally recreated by the same author who has created dozens of these nonsense Bangladesh-X relations articles suggesting he has received "approval" from an admin. Though that is exactly why we have WP:DRV, this was stealthily recreated without addressing any of the original problems. Possibly a G4 candidate but let's grind it out. St★lwart 111 00:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete the "recreated" version was hardly an improvement from the deleted version nor address issues in the original AfD. and Stalwart is right that WP:DRV should have been used if the article creator was not happy. also note an admin's comment when this article was recreated in October 2014:
(cur | prev) 20:40, 3 October 2014†Randykitty (talk | contribs)†(Randykitty moved page Bangladesh–Slovakia relations to User:Nomian/Bangladesh–Slovakia relations over a redirect without leaving a redirect: NOT sufficiently better sourced) LibStar ( talk) 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Â B E C K Y S A Y L E SÂ 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Â B E C K Y S A Y L E SÂ 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Â B E C K Y S A Y L E SÂ 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep should be kept according to general notability guidelines. The article was significantly improved after the deletion in the last AFD. Bangladesh Prime Minister paid an official visit to Slovakia in 1999. There is also significant trade relations between the two countries. Nomian ( talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment When it was deleted based on the outcome of the previous AFD, I asked Randykitty, the closing admin, to userfy the article. She said to have it approved by an admin before moving to the mainspace. After expanding the userfied article, I asked The Bushranger to check it and he said it looked alright to him, and then I moved it to the mainspace. Randykitty was not aware of the approval by The Bushranger, so she deleted it again. But after her discussion with The Bushranger, I moved it back to the mainspace. Nomian ( talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- can you please provide diffs to this?
LibStar (
talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- An admin's role at AFD is to judge consensus and determine how a discussion should be closed. Was The Bushranger aware that the article had been deleted as the result of an AFD before "approving" the unilateral overturning of that AFD by the author who created the article? If anything, the new version is worse than the original (from what I can remember of it). The sourcing is completely disingenuous.
This source looks good until you realise that it is a word-for-word copy of
this source which is actually a primary-source press release. Neither is a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. Given the genesis of that source, I believe the independence and legitimacy of
this source should probably be questioned also. The remaining two sources are clearly press releases issued by various government agencies. In fact, the first source was authored by the
News Agency of the Slovak Republic ("Autor: TASR"). So there is likely not a single independent source available for these so-called "relations". How it could possibly meet
WP:GNG remains a mystery.
St★lwart
111 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here is the diff where The Bushranger said
"It looks alright to me". He was also aware that it was deleted via an AFD.
Nomian (
talk) 14:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Read the rest of his comment. People don't consider subjects like this to be notable if they are original research, can be verified only by primary sources and don't come close to meeting our general notability guidelines. St★lwart 111 15:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here is the diff where The Bushranger said
"It looks alright to me". He was also aware that it was deleted via an AFD.
Nomian (
talk) 14:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- An admin's role at AFD is to judge consensus and determine how a discussion should be closed. Was The Bushranger aware that the article had been deleted as the result of an AFD before "approving" the unilateral overturning of that AFD by the author who created the article? If anything, the new version is worse than the original (from what I can remember of it). The sourcing is completely disingenuous.
This source looks good until you realise that it is a word-for-word copy of
this source which is actually a primary-source press release. Neither is a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. Given the genesis of that source, I believe the independence and legitimacy of
this source should probably be questioned also. The remaining two sources are clearly press releases issued by various government agencies. In fact, the first source was authored by the
News Agency of the Slovak Republic ("Autor: TASR"). So there is likely not a single independent source available for these so-called "relations". How it could possibly meet
WP:GNG remains a mystery.
St★lwart
111 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- can you please provide diffs to this?
LibStar (
talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin and other voters User:Stalwart111 has been repeatedly removing the sources and blanking the articles (diff: [1]) just because the sources became dead links but they should know that according to WP:Link rot sources cannot be removed even if they are dead. The links were properly running when I added them in those articles and a google search for those news titles can prove that those sources exist. I feel Stalwart111 is competent enough to understand all the policies of Wikipedia and I'm requesting them to stop removing the sources and blanking the article since this is not conducive to maintain a pleasant editing environment. Nomian ( talk) 15:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't "blank" any of the articles, I added information and I fixed the grammar and other errors - you reverted those edits when you blindly (without looking at them) cut-paste reverted my edits. I've walked you through the process of having those sources considered (where they actually exist) but you
don't seem to be listening. Your accusations without evidence are a blatant
personal attack - I request you strike them.
St★lwart
111 15:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Diff is already given which clearly show you have removed the sources and blanking the article.
Nomian (
talk) 15:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- That term doesn't mean what you think it means and your attacks are based on a misreading of policy. St★lwart 111 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Diff is already given which clearly show you have removed the sources and blanking the article.
Nomian (
talk) 15:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't "blank" any of the articles, I added information and I fixed the grammar and other errors - you reverted those edits when you blindly (without looking at them) cut-paste reverted my edits. I've walked you through the process of having those sources considered (where they actually exist) but you
don't seem to be listening. Your accusations without evidence are a blatant
personal attack - I request you strike them.
St★lwart
111 15:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:GNG, recreation seems to be approved by an admin as shown in the diff. -- Zayeem (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
-
Zayeem, GNG requires secondary sources. All of the sources available are primary sources. And while bold re-creation with the approval of an admin is possible, this was done of the basis of dishonest sourcing and a disingenuous claim that previous concerns had been resolved. Had the admin in question been aware of that, I imagine he would have suggested this go to DRV where consensus to re-create on the basis of those sources would have been unlikely.
St★lwart
111 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Stalwart111, I think there's only
one source which could be termed as primary but others from The Daily Star, Daily Sun, Priyo News are purely secondary and independent sources. Also, I just checked the
diff again and going with the discussion thread, it seems Nomian did inform the admin about the previous AfD. Is there anything I'm missing? --
Zayeem
(talk) 11:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- This source is a word-for-word copy of this press release (also included as a "source"). It's unclear how independent the BSS is (the credit for the other Star article) but it's the "national news agency" of Bangladesh, run by the "Prime Minister's former Press Secretary" so, you know... It's not clear what Priyo is or whether it is reliable but it looks like a collection of user-submitted primary sources. Regardless, the credit is to the same BSS. In among those, the only one that looks independent (the grammatical errors suggest its not a reprinted press release) is the Sun which talks about plans and maybes but actually acknowledges no relationship exists. So the only one that might be okay as a source contradicts the premise of the article and the others (on which notability hangs) don't seem close to independent. In general terms, one admin can't unilaterally overrule another. St★lwart 111 13:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Stalwart111, I think there's only
one source which could be termed as primary but others from The Daily Star, Daily Sun, Priyo News are purely secondary and independent sources. Also, I just checked the
diff again and going with the discussion thread, it seems Nomian did inform the admin about the previous AfD. Is there anything I'm missing? --
Zayeem
(talk) 11:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Zayeem, GNG requires secondary sources. All of the sources available are primary sources. And while bold re-creation with the approval of an admin is possible, this was done of the basis of dishonest sourcing and a disingenuous claim that previous concerns had been resolved. Had the admin in question been aware of that, I imagine he would have suggested this go to DRV where consensus to re-create on the basis of those sources would have been unlikely.
St★lwart
111 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - What went on between Slovakia and Bangladesh anyway? Jackninja5 ( talk) 11:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 03:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 03:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- see WP:VAGUEWAVE, While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. LibStar ( talk) 00:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per GNG. WP:SYNTH is about how we report what the sources say, not whether we report what the sources say. -- 99of9 ( talk) 00:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, synthesis is about bringing disparate facts together to draw a conclusion not drawn by the sources. Like adding one minor event to a routine meeting and combining those with someone's plans to do something to make 42. St★lwart 111 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP remains the only place where you can read about these "relations". It remains an invention of Wikipedia. St★lwart 111 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - What a surprise, another (disruptive) nomination of an X-Y Relations article involving Bangladesh — at least six in the past two weeks, probably more, by the same two editors. Rationale for the sixth time: Bangladesh is one of the most populous nations on earth, with a population bigger than that of Russia. Its foreign relations are the subject of scholarly study. This is not intended as a free-standing article, per se, but rather as a sub-page of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. Carrite ( talk) 02:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- you've recycled this several times "is one of the most populous nations on earth, with a population bigger than that of Russia". the population in itself does not give Bangladesh a free pass to a bilateral article to any other country. does it now mean Bangladesh-Guatemala, Bangladesh-Nauru is now notable?
LibStar (
talk) 02:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- And despite silly claims of "disruption" (the same baseless accusation levelled by the creator; yawn!), the nomination of these articles has been explained extensively. These were all created in a very short space of time by the one WP:SPA in an effort to populate a template that lists all of these non-notable sub-stubs. As above, WP remains the only place you can read about this synthesis of ideas. No other medium has given these supposed "relations" coverage. All that can be brought forward by way of coverage is coverage of disparate events and comments sewn together to form a patchwork quilt. In this case, almost entirely primary sources. As a result, inclusionists have only one port to which they can sail and that is WP:BIGNUMBER. St★lwart 111 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- you've recycled this several times "is one of the most populous nations on earth, with a population bigger than that of Russia". the population in itself does not give Bangladesh a free pass to a bilateral article to any other country. does it now mean Bangladesh-Guatemala, Bangladesh-Nauru is now notable?
LibStar (
talk) 02:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GNG and the two cooperate in international forums. There was even a visit at the level of the prime minister.-- Rainmaker23 ( talk) 03:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- one leader visit in over 20 years of relations actually shows how important these relations are if they can only make the effort to do one state visit.
LibStar (
talk) 03:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Slovakia has only existed for 22 years. More significantly, there is a 100 million dollar trade relationship.-- Rainmaker23 ( talk) 02:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- one leader visit in over 20 years of relations actually shows how important these relations are if they can only make the effort to do one state visit.
LibStar (
talk) 03:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Countries with regular bilateral relations have leader visits every 2-3 years. I would have expected at least 5 visits in 20 years, if relations started 2 years ago then I would understand no visits. 100 million is pathetically low, for trade given that Bangladesh exports USD 30 billion a year. That is trade with Slovakia is worth 0.3% of Bangladesh total export. Or put it another way , 50% of Bangladesh exports go to the European union including Slovakia, which means $15 billion is exported. The fraction of that sent to Slovakia is less than 0.6%. These are insignificant numbers. LibStar ( talk) 11:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment; notability can be measured in different relative terms. 0.3% of total exports is not a negible number, if 100% is 30 billion USD. 100 million USD is a large amount of money, no matter how you twist and turn things. -- Soman ( talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all of these "relations" AfDs. Common activities, e.g., masses of merchants trading (a la "economics") or political bureaucrats junket-jetting around the world to blitherblather into microphones, do not constitute notably distinct activities warranting ABC-XYZ relations articles. Pax 20:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.