Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Colombia relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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 clear consensus amongst editors whether the sources in the article represent adequate coverage to meet the GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Colombia relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I know some people may be wondering why a nomination 12 months later but I carefully looked at this article again, and noticed the number of sources have been artificially inflated by double counting to give the impression of significant coverage. this source is identical to, and again this source is identical to this  both refer to rather routine coverage of an ambassador presenting his credentials wanting to cooperate but then followed by years of non action. this source only refers to Colombia in a small part. Source 2 in the article is a dead link. Therefore I don't think this topic meets WP:GNG, looking at the quality and depth of sources, we are really left with 3 sources, 2 covering a routine presentations of new non resident ambassador (one based in USA, the other in India) and one with a one line mention of wanting to sign a visa waiver program. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * is there any coverage of this relationship in colombia? I searched Colombia's biggest newspaper El Tiempo (Colombia) and almost all coverage of Bangladesh is about its natural disasters, rather than actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep New sources have been added. There are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage on the topic. Bangladesh Foreign Secretary paid an official visit to Colombia in 2011. Article should be kept according to general notability guidelines. Nomian (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A single visit is no indication of notability. You haven't actually demonstrated how this passes WP:GNG at all.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (commune)  @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (parlez)  @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (spiel)  @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete the sourcing is entirely disingenuous with copies of articles presented as different sources, broken links and government-produced primary sources. A visit by the Ambassador of Colombia in Bangladesh to the local (Bangladeshi) Chamber of Commerce is not an indication of a notable diplomatic relationship. It looks like someone has just googled "Bangladesh and Colombia" and ref-spammed the results into the article. Total nonsense.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * note it was the non resident ambassador of Colombia who never appeared in the Bangladeshi press again after he presented his credentials. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Countries are interested in trade, bureaucrats love their jobs, snow is white, water is wet.... This article has nothing to say.  Pax — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - fair bit of references (excluding the duplicate ones), enough to pass WP:GNG. -- Zayeem  (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those that remain relate to one or two visits, not diplomatic or historical "relations". We still, per WP:GNG, need significant coverage of the "relations" between the two. You believe not-particularly-in-depth coverage of a couple of low-level visits is sufficient?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well when I looked at the sources, I found enough coverage about the existing relations between Bangladesh and Colombia which I believe are significant enough to pass the GNG. -- Zayeem  (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be genuinely interested in which of those you looked at.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And I couldn't find any coverage in the Colombian press about bilateral relations with Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not intended as a free-standing page, this is a subpage of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. There are 156.6 million people in Bangladesh — it is an encyclopedic topic. This crusade of deletion challenges by the same nominator again and again and again is disruptive and needs to stop. Passes GNG on its own merits, incidentally. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the number of people in Bangladesh is not a relevant consideration, how many of them actually even know about Colombia, coverage of actual relations is the consideration. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * does Bangladesh get a free pass for notable relations because it has over 150 million? So any bilateral gets automatic notability? LibStar (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the dead link with a link to a (subscription) news archive which has the full text. --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Pax's comments; the sources may be relevant to the subject of relations between the countries, but they do nothing substantial to establish that topic's notability. This is certainly a topic that I could foresee being a viable article at some date, but the present sources and content do not support a stand-alone article.  S n o w  talk 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. Relations do not need to be exceptional, just notable. If we were to rank all international relations this pair would not be at the top of the list, someone always has to be at the bottom. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 8 January 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.