Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Bangladesh 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 no consensus. No consensus for a specific action has emerged from this discussion, and no consensus has formed regarding the notability of the topic. North America1000 03:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. The article is really based on a one off visit by the Bangladeshi foreign minister, with lots of we want to cooperate more type statements. They agreed to establish a joint economic commission but this never happened. There are no embassies, significant trades or agreements between the countries. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above. A collection of WP:ROUTINE events. Neutralitytalk 19:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing particularly noteworthy in Russian or Azeri sources. Some coverage but routine stuff. They unconditionally support AZE on Nagorno-Karabakh, which is not surprising/less noteworthy since Bangladesh is very tight with Turkey, who sides with AZE against ARM. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep according to the general notability guidelines, there are seven references with significant coverage. I have also expanded the article a bit. The two countries have signed three agreements and have some high level visits. Besides, this article was earlier nominated just few months back, we should wait for some time before renominating it again. Nomian (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the previous AfD discussion? It doesn't look like it was created. Additionally, they have had minimal contact as far as economic exchange. They want to set things up but they haven't yet. In 2014, they had something like US$70,000 in trade between them (almost nothing). —Мандичка YO 😜 03:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Check out the diff for the AFD. It was nominated in January this year. The relations have been growing recently which is reflected by the high level visits and agreements. Nomian (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * what are the 3 agreements? There's a MoU which is not the same as an agreement. There's also a draft agreement. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The official page of Azerbaijan foreign ministry says 3 agreements are in force between the two countries. Nomian (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They are so minor they can't even name them. LibStar (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. Nomian (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the high level visit is one minister visit from one country in 23 years of relations, that's how lowly both countries see each other. LibStar (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge Keep & merge: There are some sources but not enough to have a stand alone article of the subject. Hence. it would be better to merge it into another more general page. Mhhossein (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP & MERGE seems contradictory to me. Possibly it is an AfD 'term of art' I am unfamiliar with if so would you please explain so I can understand your argument better?. What article would you suggest as a MERGE target? Cheers. J bh  Talk  15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The useage might be wrong, but I meant to emphasize on the keeping of the materials and this does not mean to have a separate page for the title. Titles such as Foreign relations of Bangladesh and/or Foreign relations of Azerbaijan are good choices for this purpose. Mhhossein (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for making your !vote clearer to me. Cheers. J bh  Talk  02:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - fair bit of in depth coverage, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Zayeem  (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nomian. Satisfies GNG. ROUTINE is wholly irrelevant, as the bilateral relations of two countries are not an event. The bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are per se notable ( WP:NBILATERAL, WP:IAR (mentioning this policy since someone will probably argue that the preceding page is a draft), WP:N (lead section says a topic is notable if it "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words), cf. "significant [or] interesting ... enough to deserve attention" in lead section of WP:BIO, which I suggest is intended as a principle of general application). The impractical nature of merging a page that has two obvious but equal targets (the two countries) is also a very strong argument for keeping the page (and all pages of this type). James500 (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the above argument is trying to make a claim for inherent notability without even discussing actual coverage or mention of Bangladesh or Azerbaijan. Bilaterals are not inherently notable, over 100 have been deleted, there is no community consensus regarding a draft guideline. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

*Delete No embassy, only two visits, Insignificant trade, diplomatic relations, Dipu Moni, Foreign minister of Bangladesh visited 187 foreign countries in 4.5 years for which she has faced criticism. Her visit does not imply any notability.
 * KeepFair amount of coverages and new sources found. The two countries have supported each other in international organizations. Have non resident ambassadors. --- Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG. Future agreements are not significant unless there has been significant coverage of the negotiations. Pro forma trips, which seem to be part of a multi-country tour, are not significant. WP:NBILATERAL is a draft edited only by the editor who cited it above, . The material in it is not supported by community consensus and much of it contradicts consensus. In any event this is not the place to discuss a draft guideline and it should not be cited in deletion discussions until it has had input from many more editors. J bh  Talk  15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * great pick up jbhunley, James500 basically invented WP:NBILATERAL unilaterally to deceptively try to argue there's a guideline that supports his argument. Ironically he criticised me in another AfD for citing an essay, when he disingenuously uses self crafted essays himself. I'm guessing the next topic will have its own draft guideline invented. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Jbhunley: That is nonsense. If we can cite essays we can also cite draft proposals. "Only an essay" is one of the arguments to avoid, and "only a draft" can be dismissed with the same argument. As far as I am aware there are no restrictions on what can be cited at AfD, and the creation of any restrictions would impede proper discussion at AfD. It would also impede discussion of the draft. In any event, if you read my previous comment closely, you will see that I am actually citing WP:IAR, which is certainly policy. James500 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC) As for community consensus: I think the number of previous deletions is irrelevant. Firstly, stare decisis does not apply at AfD. (It would create a self fulfilling prophecy where editors cite guidelines at AfD, and AfD on the talk pages of guidelines, which would permanently lock us in to a particular result). Secondly, consensus can change, and not all of those AfDs will be recent. Frankly, Wikipedia is so large, and we have so many AfDs, and so many editors, that I don't think that 100 deletions is a particularly large number. It could be produced by an unrepresentative vocal minority. It unlikely that AfD participants as a whole are a representative sample of the community. I don't think it is likely that consensus (which is not the same thing as past results) is against the notability of such broad topics. And one more thing. I engaged in no deception whatsoever. I mentioned that the page was a draft (which was not actually necessary since it is plainly marked as one). I never, at any point, claimed it was a guideline. And the page history is there for everyone to see. So there is no deception there either. In that context, deception would mean nothing less than socking. James500 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter how you present it you created a guideline one day and cited your own, and only your own, opinion as if it were something others were working on. Whether you intended it yo be deceptive or not, and I will assume you did not, it is very dodgy. Since the material in WP:BILATERAL is only your view for which there is no consensus you should strike the link and simply express your opinion without the implied weight of a . Aslo,WP:IAR is not something to cite in a deletion discussion you wight as well cite . J bh  Talk  17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Blue links carry no weight at all. I did not cite it as if it were something others were working on. I will however strike my citation of it above as it has been edited in a way that is not compatible with the context of that citation. WP:IAR is the main policy of the project. It should be certainly be cited in deletion discussions and everywhere else it may be applicable. Applying GNG to a topic as fundamental as this one would prevent us from improving and maintaining the project, as GNG is highly subjective. Allowing its use as an argument for deletion would allow users to argue that no matter how much coverage there is, it is not significant, or at least, to demand a level of coverage that is excessive. That is, in my opinion, what is happening in this AfD, as I can't see anything wrong with Nomian's sources. We have to draw a "bright line" somewhere and say, beyond this point, we will not accept "I want more sources" as an argument. GNG does not do that adequately. James500 (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My primary issue is one of perception. While blue links do not carry procedural weight they do carry perceptual weight, in particular with those who comment on AfDs in topic areas they are unfamiliar with, which many editors seems to do. I will read through the sources which have been provided since this AfD started to see if they change my opinion. One of the things I look for when deciding if coverage is 'significant' is depth of coverage not simply quantity of coverage . J bh  Talk  21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

so will you be inventing another draft guideline for the next AfD? When I've seen WP: IAR cited in AfDs it's when someone knows they can't prove notability so bring out the IAR card as some weak attempt to establish notability. The fact is there is no inherent notability for bilaterals and unilaterally inventing a draft guideline for the sole purpose of this AfD carries zero weight and is also proves a lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Since WP:NBILATERAL now exists, we don't need another draft proposal for bilateral relations. (2) I did not create that draft for the purpose of this AfD. I created it after the last AfD about that ambassador Patricia Cardenas (and I forget the rest of her name) and all the other discussions I've participated in or read on this subject. That is why it mentions ambassadors, embassies and treaties, which have nothing to do with this AfD. I did not know that this AfD existed until after I created the draft. I was expecting the deletion sorting list to be empty when I looked at it. I was surprised that another nomination of a notable topic had been made so soon after the last one. Why on Earth would I need to create a draft proposal only for an AfD on a topic that clearly satisfies WP:GNG? That would be absurd. Think about it. (3) Regardless of what other people might do, I do not cite IAR to support the inclusion of non notable topics. My primary argument is WP:GNG (which is enough to keep this article by itself), and I also take the view that the wording of WP:N supports inherent notability of anything objectively "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words (which results in a keep as well). I mentioned IAR because it necessarily allows us to mention essays and proposals. (4) Since telepathy is widely believed to be impossible, it is probably not helpful to speculate on why someone wrote an essay, or why they cited a policy, in the absence of an explanation. James500 (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * it is a blanket draft gudieline that no one else has worked on, and has zero chance of becoming a real guideline because community consensus has not granted inherent notability to ambassadors, embassies and bilaterals. There has already been an attempt to give ambassadors inherent notability at WP:BIO that went nowhere. To quote this draft guideline that does not reflect established community consensus would not sway a closing admin. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@:::User:LibStar: I disagree. So far, three people, all whom are participants in this AfD and who want this article deleted, have criticised the draft. That isn't a consensus, or even a representative sample of the people in this AfD. There was substantial support for the inherent notability of ambassadors at WT:BIO. There is a realistic prospect of that achieving consensus, though it may take time. The other propositions are not devoid of support either. There is an emerging consensus that bilateral treaties are notable. James500 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

your draft guideline states that all embassies, ambassadors and embassies are automatically notable. That does not explain why 100s have been deleted which proves no inherent notability whatsoever. You would have a basis for claiming inherent notability if you could show that almost all afds ended in keep. Instead you are pushing your own view and pretending you somehow have some basis for inherent notability when in fact you have none.like previous afds you resort to long winded deflection and argument that actually achieves nothing LibStar (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:LibStar: It is a draft proposal, not a draft guideline. Proposals not claim anything is notable. They propose that we should come to an agreement that they are. And the basis I suggested for inherent notability was the lead section of WP:N. Read what I wrote more carefully. I don't think inherent notability is determined by common outcomes for the reasons I've explained above. James500 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * quoting a self written proposal to advance one's argument in an AfD is hardly credible. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the second time, I quoted WP:N. James500 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This document already linked is the entire extent of the AZE-BAN history, spanning the years since Azerbaijan became independent (1991) through last year (2014). It's barely a single page with giant oversized font. This is not indicative of ANY significant relationship. "Supporting each other in international organizations" means nothing - as I pointed out, Turkey and Bangladesh have a huge economic relationship (billion+ in trade), and Azerbaijan is very politically aligned with Turkey against Armenia in the very ugly disputes in this region. (Turkey and Azerbaijan are the only countries that deny the Armenian genocide.) There are simply no sources there, and I scoured in Russian and Azerbaijani trying to find something. Caucasus is one of my primary interests and if there was any way I thought this met GNG I would say so.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge The article appeared to reference seven substantive independent news sources. On closer inspection, however, most of those pieces are not independent of the Bangladesh government; they are simply reprints of the official press releases from the government run Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) news agency, with no additional reporting, analysis, or interpretation. Only three sources provide any meaningful degree of independent coverage of the topic.


 * For me those three sources' coverage of 1) the Bangladesh Foreign Minister's visit to Azerbaijan and 2) the Bangladesh Ministry of Commerce's plan to hold a meeting to review a proposal for an accord, does not amount to significant coverage of the subject Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations. So it does not meet WP:GNG, and at this time a stand-alone article on the topic is not warranted.


 * Articles are supposed to be based primarily on independent, reliable, secondary sources. To meet that guideline it appears that some of the content attributable only to non-independent or primary sources will have to be trimmed. I propose that what is left be merged into Foreign relations of Bangladesh and a piped "See Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations" link be added to Foreign relations of Azerbaijan. Why that target? It's somewhat arbitrary, based in part on the fact that so far the only independent sources are Bangladeshi. If people feel strongly that Azerbaijan should be the target, or that the text should be merged into both, I could support that. No prejudice against recreating the article at a later date if something happens in their relationship that draws significant coverage. Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I just want to clarify that my analysis of the news sources that are not press releases is that they clearly satisfy GNG. My previous !vote did not rely on the sources that have been identified as press releases by Worldbruce.
 * In my view, any guideline that says that content should be based primarily on independent secondary sources is probably invalid. Article 2 of the WMF bylaws says that "useful information" may not be deleted from WMF projects (though it may be transwikied or otherwise moved around). It seems obvious that utility is an intrinsic quality of information that cannot possibly be equated with an obviously arbitrary numerical rule that more than 50% of content in an article must come from independent secondary sources. (I assume that information from unreliable sources is always useless). Since the WMF owns this site, it seems to me that no community guideline can overrule their bylaws. James500 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are completely twisting that to justify keeping a pointless article about the relations of two countries which have almost no relations (no shared history, no significant interaction, no permanent diplomatic mission, and next to no economic trade). Quote: "The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity." Nowhere does it say "every iota of information ever written down or recorded is useful and shall never be deleted from Wikipedia." The community decides what is "useful" by whether or not it meets GNG. The criteria to meet GNG is very throroughly clear and understood by most people. If you can't understand all of this, perhaps for your own sake you should not participate at AfD, to save yourself from experiencing this repeated frustration.  —Мандичка YO 😜 22:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is total nonsense from start to finish. That simply isn't what I said. You are the one twisting my words. The guideline that I and Worldbruce referred to isn't GNG, it is content guideline relating to the removal of information from primary and non independent sources from articles on topics that are notable. So I did not question the compatibility of GNG with the bylaws. Indeed GNG is my main argument for keeping this article. I did not suggest that "every iota of information ever written down or recorded is useful". I said that the guideline in question seems to contemplate removing information under the prescribed circumstances even if that information is useful (which it may or may not), which clearly would not be compatible with the bylaws. The proposition that the sum total of useful information in all independent secondary reliable sources is greater than that in all other reliable sources in the world seems to be one that is not obviously true (why should it be?) and probably could not be proved. My objection was to the precise formulation of the guideline invoked above. I did not object to the removal of any particular piece of information from primary or non independent sources now in the article because I have yet to assess whether that information is useful. I objected to the criteria proposed to be used for determining whether such information ought to be included in this article or another, a determination I have yet to make. Since Worldbruce's argument was advanced against merging certain content into other articles, I was not advancing an argument for keeping this article. I think the word "useful" in the bylaws has to be construed according to its normal meaning as an ordinary English word. Whilst the community has to decide whether information is useful within that meaning of the word, I do not see how the community could have been authorized to redefine that word to have a meaning incompatible with its said normal meaning. If that guideline seeks to redefine "useful", it seems to have ascribed it a meaning that is at least potentially (depending on how much useful information primary or non independent reliable sources actually contain) incompatible with its said normal meaning, which won't be compatible wit the bylaws. I understand GNG perfectly and my understanding of it is far better than yours. IIRC, I rarely experience "frustration" at AfD, as I generally get a result that I consider acceptable, and I expect that continue in the future, as my opinions are a perfect reflection of community consensus, and any rules etc we have to obey in situations where consensus does not apply (CONEXCEPT). I do not think I am going to be "frustrated" in this AfD either, as I am fairly confident it will result in the article being kept. James500 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another extremely long winded response which actually mentions nothing about Bangladesh nor Azerbaijan. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was the correct answer to the question posed. James500 (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:N, which can't be argued against in good faith.  Running down the relations as unimportant is really running down the countries as unimportant, which is positively shameful. Wily D  11:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * how precisely does it meet WP:N. You haven't addressed that. The argument for deletion is that relations are very limited not that the relationship is unimportant. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying the countries are unimportant. Their nearly non-existent relationship, however, fails to meet the requirements of a Wikipedia article. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:42, 4 July 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.