Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Pakistan 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.  Sandstein  06:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Argentina–Pakistan relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

another random combination, a few minor agreements doesn't cut it. the Pakistan Foreign Ministry has close to nothing to say about Argentina. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It might be a random combination but there do seem to be relations of some sort. Just typing the phrase into google throws up | Argentina to collaborate in Pakistan’s livestock sector| Pak-Argentina Joint Economic Committee Meeting| FIRST SESSION OF PAKISTAN-ARGENTINA JOINT COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATIONArgentina to provide technical assistance to Pakistan. They have embassies . We're not looking at anything huge, but there's something and just being slightly obscure doesn't qualify it for deletion. HJMitchell    You rang?  10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note- I've tagged this article for rescue by the ARS for the reasons given above. HJMitchell    You rang?  10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The presence of embassies is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Pakistan and of Argentina. For the rest - well, only two of your links worked for me, but the "Pakistan And Argentina" article doesn't talk about relations, but rather compares Argentina's situation with what might happen in Pakistan (which seems quaint today - would that Pakistan were even at Argentina's worst now!). We're left with a link on Argentina's willingness to provide technical assistance on bus manufacturing in Pakistan. Sorry, but that sounds like trivia/news, not something we'd ever mention or consider notable elsewhere, not something about the two countries relationship over a number of years, and not something we could ever write an article on. - Biruitorul Talk 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources cited by HJMitchell show an ongoing relationship between the two nations. I've taken the liberty of adding titles to the most relevant of the ones cited, with apologies to Mitchell for editing his post. Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can we hold fire on deleting entries on bilateral relations pending the outcome of the   central discussion on this class of article?  There is growing support for these articles and for a specific guideline to define what makes a bilateral relationship notable - analogous to say WP:music which allows us to rank as notable any musician who’s had a hit in a national chart, even if she hasn’t been the subject of multiple non trivial journalistic or academic studies.  Until we have the new guideline editors can spend hours finding sources on these relationships only to see the article deleted by opponents who zealously appeal to a strict interpretation of existing guidelines, which while worthy aren’t specifically tailed to address bilateral relations.   Once a specific guideline is in place these articles can be improved accordingly or deleted if they don't meet the agreed criteria – and much less time will be wasted editing in vain and on these AFD discussions. (changed this from strong keep to a comment as I see I accidently voted again) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered strong keep as it does not assess the notability of the subject. another editor has said Centralized discussions are not arbitration, or even mediation. There is no definite outcome of a centralized discussion, and even if there was, the underlying issue is and will always be one of notability  LibStar (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. If you don't want to address the merits of the article, if all you want to do right now is to ask people to wait, if you propose to close this discussion, then please just say "close".  Frankly, I think that the "strong keep" comment is insulting to those of us who have voted "keep" based on the merits of a relationship between Argentina and Pakistan. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my explanation above regarding the lack of sources detailing a relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Response- Mandsford, if it makes it clearer, edit away. The article is shabby, I'll give you that one, but as I've shown above, there is evidence of a relationship. The sources I've cited were thrown up in the first 2 pages of a google search and they definitely suggest diplomatic ties. Respectfully, people should exercise their due diligence before nominating an article for deletion. The diplomatic ties are definitely notable and the article could easily be improved. However, I would say that generic comments about "notability" and "bilateral relations" are not constructive- can we stick the matter at hand? HJMitchell    You rang?  18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Also both countries had a nuclear program and a missile program. Canadian (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooh, that's interesting! I'll see if I can't dig a source up for that! ta! HJMitchell    You rang?  21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance of Argentina and weapons of mass destruction to Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - care to explain? - Biruitorul Talk 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have now re- written the article, preserving what I could of the original information. I've added multiple citations and all information is well sourced. The information given now definitively, in my opinion at least, asserts the notability of the relationship between these two countries. HJMitchell    You rang?  22:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good work, HJ Mitchell. Notability is established via proof of specific programs of cooperation between the two. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources indicated by HJ Mitchell. --Oakshade (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOHARM argument is invalid. - Biruitorul Talk 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is why it makes more sense to debate these articles one-by-one, rather than to put things "on hold" while people explain their vision of what an encyclopedia should be. While that discussion was droning on past its second week, we had people here who actually focussed on whether Argentina and Pakistan had a relationship.  I think that some people think that the nominators are causing trouble when, in fact, they're actually inviting us to turn a thoughtlessly created article into something worthy of Wikipedia.  Talk is being done over in the centralized discussion, and lots of it--- but this is where the work is being done.  Nice work, HJMitchell.  Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - let's go through each cited reference to show why we have nothing resembling a valid article so far. Links 1 and 2 are primary sources (produced by the Pakistani government) and thus fail the requirement for "independence from the subject" mandated by WP:GNG. Really, do you think minutes and declarations of meetings can be used as reliable sources? Link 3 violates WP:SELFPUB, but even if it didn't, the information is trivial and irrelevant. Again: do you see this information being used anywhere else on Wikipedia? No, it's only being included here out of a perceived "need" to "expand" this article. It says nothing about "Argentina–Pakistan relations", but rather about what the editor who added it thinks constitutes Argentina–Pakistan relations, but is in fact trivial in the extreme. Link 4 is about Brazil, so that's irrelevant. Link 5 is an essay by the Canadian Government which in any case says nothing specifically about Argentina–Pakistan relations. Links 6 and 7 are directories, and as pointed out, Diplomatic missions of Pakistan and Diplomatic missions of Argentina fully cover that information already. Still waiting on any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - none of the references do that yet. Let's not allow our standards to slip just to fill a perceived need, all right? - Biruitorul Talk 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The formation of joint committees is a notable relationship,(ref 4 & perhaps 5 are in fact just based upon co-occurrences of words).. DGG (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do reliable secondary sources attest to the notability of these committees, or is it just your opinion they're notable? - Biruitorul Talk 04:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the essay from the Candians provides context, the rest is all perfectly good information and, to be perfectly frank, just because you've never heard of a relationship doesn't mean there isn't one! This is wikipedia not Biruitorul'spedia and I have proven that there's a notable relationship, regardless of where the information came from. Unless you're suggesting that the national governments would lie about having ties??? HJMitchell    You rang?  12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not shift the goalposts here. The Canadian essay says nothing about Argentina-Pakistan relations. Neither does the article on Brazil. The remaining sources are either primary - and these are not acceptable per the "independent of the subject" requirement of the GNG, no matter how many red herrings about national government lying you raise - or trivia about speeches and declarations that in no way meet the "significant coverage" requirement, no matter how much you pretend this is about my opinions (which I've never made it out to be). Either you accept the GNG and work within those, or recognize you're deliberately lowering the bar in order to allow in trivia that would never make it in were it not for a perceived "need" to "fill in details" on these articles. - Biruitorul Talk 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of references I've added today are "reliable, third party sources" and even those which aren't prove that there is a relationship between the two countries. The Pakistani president gave a speech to the Argentine chamber of commerce; he held meetings with the Argentine president; both governments are talking about developing their relationship further; they have established trade patterns and share information on defence and technology. All facts. All backed up with sources to the Pakistan Times and multiple other independent news agencies. Agian, just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it non notable. HJMitchell    You rang?  16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, can we kill this "you've never heard of it" meme? I never said that. Now, let's try this again. Links 2 and 5, no matter how much you may wish to use them to "prove" anything, cannot be used, per GNG. Links 6, 8 and 9 do not mention Argentina-Pakistan relations. Links 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13 and 14 are a grab-bag of meaningless symbolism: declarations, visits, memoranda that do not cover the subject in significant depth but do prioritize meaningless trivia that you, and not reliable sources, have decided forms part of "Argentina–Pakistan relations". Finally, links 11 and 12 are directories of embassies; we already have those. In sum: we have here a hodgepodge of miscellanea arrived at through some Google searches that you have put together with the aim of creating the appearance of notability. But once we strip away that trivia and those government sources, we are left with a very hollow work indeed. But that's unsurprising; GNG seems to go out the window for these types of articles. - Biruitorul Talk 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. What you're branding wholesale as "trivia" is perfectly valid information. If the same information referred to two western countries, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. How about trying to work with me to save what we can of this article rather than doing all you can to see it eliminated? HJMitchell    You rang?  18:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid for what? What exactly does it validate? Given the lack of a source discussing this relationship as such (this sort of thing is what I mean when I say that, or even, if it were viewable, this), we're left with the option of stringing together bits of news that we consider to validate the notion of an Argentina-Pakistan relationship - but in the absence of a source actually discussing that in depth, that's not permitted. And that's the crux of the matter, not speculation on what would happen if Western countries were involved (much the same, I imagine). - Biruitorul Talk 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - exceeds the standard of WP:N, and no argument has shown that this is an unusual case that merits highly irregular treatment. Sources already presented exceed the standards of WP:N by a large margin. On my own, I looked over  +  +  +  +  +  +  to convince me. Wily D  19:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, those livestock and trade cooperation memoranda! Got any sources documenting some sort of relationship other than what you deem notable, though? - Biruitorul Talk 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Source 7 provided by WilyD, as well as several of my own demonstrate this perfectly "Pakistan and Argentina had very close cooperation in various fields and unanimity of views on international issues". What more do you want??? HJMitchell    You rang?  20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What else was some Pakistani apparatchik going to say to his Argentine counterpart? "We despise you?" More to the point: it's nice various figures on both sides have made pleasant declarations about their relations, but in the absence of in-depth material of the sort I pointed out (more examples, we can't assume this amounts to much. - Biruitorul Talk 21:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't the slighest knowledge of what I deem notable, because I haven't argued for any standard of notability. I've only applied the usual standard in wide acceptance across the entire project. Grammatically, of course, you're asking me to provide sources for areas of their relationship I don't find notable.  I have no idea why you'd do that. Wily D  20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The links you cite as evidence of notability is what you deem notable, but they fall far short of the in-depth coverage required by the usual standard (WP:GNG). - Biruitorul Talk 21:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Making flat false assertions can lead to incorrect conclusions, of course. But the sources I've provided clearly demonstrate the subject is substantially more notable than required by WP:N for inclusion. Wily D 21:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because they don't cover the relationship, only news stories that you deem to be evidence of such a relationship, which is actually covered nowhere in depth. - Biruitorul Talk 21:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on, nobody's written a book about it so it's not notable? I'm sure there are thousands of perfectly notable subjects on wikipedia that nobody has written a book about! The news reports are good coverage, they assert that there is a relationship. This article more than meets the GNG, though quite what standard you're applying is beyond me. HJMitchell    You rang?  13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, not necessarily. In-depth articles that actually address the relationship in a broad historic, strategic, economic perspective, not little bits of it (this or this works) are also OK (per GNG, not just my own opinion). - Biruitorul Talk 15:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is consensus that this kind of clutter is no evidence of any relationship. See for example Articles for deletion/Ukraine–Vietnam relations Wuzzit (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At least read the article and check the sources before commenting here. HJMitchell    You rang?  20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I haven't read the article and checked the sources? Ukraine–Vietnam relations had plenty of sources too. Wuzzit (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This one looks OK to me, even though I expected it wouldn't. I'm waiting for Nauru-Central African Republic Relations.... Peridon (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  02:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  02:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment1 The fact that most major countries have diplomatic and commercial relationships with almost all other major countries indicates significant relationships between them. Countries do not maintain embassies if they do not think it important to do so. Yes, there are a great many of them. Fortunately, not being paper, we are an ideal medium to deal with a situation like this, and to bring them together under each pair. The only things suggested here as being significant that I think are not necessarily so is common membership in a very large organization, such as the UN, or adherence to general multilateral treaties. Close geographic relationship is not necessarily notable per se, but I think will almost always indicate relationships between even minor countries.
 * Comment2 For geographically distant minor countries, such relationships cannot be assumed. Pakistan and Argentina are, however, major countries. There will be ambiguous cases, but these two are not in the least ambiguous as major countries.
 * Comment3 Given the relatively random nature of decisions at AfD, precedents are relatively useless in a matter which is not yet settled. Once there are enough discussions to establish consensus, we will undoubtedly revisit some of the deleted pairs and will find the relationships for some of them.
 * Comment4 The requirement in the GNG for coverage is "significant" coverage, not coverage "in depth". DGG (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, aren't the two fairly interchangeable? In any case, coverage about livestock committees and the like can hardly be said to be "significant" either. - Biruitorul Talk 03:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The relationship between any nation is notable, and if someone who spoke the language checked around in the newspapers from those countries, you'd surely find plenty of mention of things. The article has plenty of referenced content already, to make it notable as it is. ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫   D r e a m Focus  01:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually not all bilateral relations are notable (this has been well established); the sources given are deeply flawed, as I've shown; and let's not play the "oh, we'll just wait for some merry lad to waltz into the Nawa-i-Waqt offices, poring over the archives until he finds something about Argentina, and translates it from Urdu for us" game - valid sources need to be shown during AfD. - Biruitorul Talk 03:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well established? Do you have any references to back that up? ;)  Honestly now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Bilateral_international_relations#Votes_on_whether_you_broadly_support_separate_articles_for_bilateral_relationships Most people seem to thus far believe the relationship between two countries, warrants an article automatically.   D r e a m Focus  03:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, have you seen Articles for deletion/Australia–Montenegro relations, Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Chile relations, Articles for deletion/Jamaica–Serbia relations, Articles for deletion/Malta-Americas relations, Articles for deletion/France–Nauru relations, Articles for deletion/Ireland–Singapore relations, Articles for deletion/Chile-Luxembourg relations, Articles for deletion/Holy See–Yemen relations, Articles for deletion/Algeria–Croatia relations, Articles for deletion/Brunei-Greece relations and many others with similar outcomes? - Biruitorul Talk 04:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen some which have been kept. Depends on who is around at the time to notice, and participate in the AFD.  Some are saved, some are lost, and more are always being nominated by the same small number of people determined to destroy them all.   D r e a m Focus  05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * but seems like you use WP:ILIKEIT, you've voted keep every single AfD and don't often describe how the actual bilateral relations meet WP:N. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, some have been kept. But you make an incorrect assertion: no one has argued to "destroy them all". Of course Anglo-French, or Sino-Russian, or Argentina-Chile relations are notable and worth having around. Just not the more random ones, like this one. - Biruitorul Talk 05:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote to destroy them all. With fire. Wuzzit (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and I know that with liars like Biruitorul and spammers like Bali ultimate, Dahn, BlueSquadronRaven etc around I will never lack for support. Wuzzit (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The evil deletionist cabal is intent on destroying ALL articles, but they can only act if no one's watching! ;-)  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)
 * Keep - sufficient reliable sources exist to demonstrate a significant relationship. Smile a While (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - following excellent improvements by HJ Mitchell and others FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Embassies and state visits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - User:Wuzzit has admitted to being a sockpuppet for the purposes of block evasion, and I have indefinitely blocked Wuzzit accordingly. Lady  of  Shalott  20:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per research above. Ikip (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there aren't any relations worth speaking of. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with for example? Hobit (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't read that, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can read the first two paragraphs, yes? Looks like a RS exactly on target discussing this relationship. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can set up a temp account on the site given by Hobit for free. The rest of the article does indeed appear to be a WP:RS and it does deal with the relationship. I believe it's cited in the article- along with, might I add, a number of other equally good articles from other, equally independent, sources. HJMitchell    You rang?  23:43, 6 May 2009 (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.