Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Fiji 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. (non-admin closure) –  nafSadh did say 00:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Fiji relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another non notable Bangladesh bilateral, no embassies, no agreements (only considering signing a MOU, no visits by leaders or ministers, no real trade. The usual want to trade more statements. The article is based on the usual spike in coverage when a non resident ambassador presents his credentials and nothing actually happens in the years after despite all the promises . I'm sure someone will come up with the silly argument that since Bangladesh has 158 million therefore this combination is notable. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep article should be kept according to the general notability guidelines, seven references with significant coverage. Nomian (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete more nationalist sausage-making with the same editor synthesising individual events and claims together to tryto make some notable whole. Primary sources from government agencies are not the same thing as independent reliable sources for the purpose of WP:GNG. The suggestion this meets that guideline is based only on misdirected ownership of articles.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:GNG, Dhaka Tribune, Banglanews24.com, Fiji Sun don't seem to be government sources. -- Zayeem  (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a closer look. Some are broken links, others are Government primary sources and the others are credited to "MINFO", the Fijian Department of Information. Are any of them legitimate secondary sources? Doesn't look like it. Modus operandi for the editor in question.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bangladesh is among the most populous nations in the world; the page Foreign relations of Bangladesh (of which this is a sub-page) is lengthy and should be lengthy, as a legitimate topic of academic study. While individual subpages of this huge page may be nonsensical in isolation, "Wikipedia is not paper" and in toto these subpages (including this one) make sense. Carrite (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * being among the most populous nations in the world is a far fetched argument for keeping, you've recycled this many times with no effect, what is required is evidence of significant ongoing relations which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nigeria is pretty popular as well though and yet we don't have that many pages. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although the population argument is weak in my view, beware of WP:OSE.Tigraan (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Azeroth is also very populous and I'm sure plenty of people play WoW there. Perhaps Bangladesh-Azeroth relations is in order. Or would that be Azeroth-Bangladesh relations. Do we retain alphabetical order if one of the locations is fictional or does that only apply if the relationship itself is a work of fiction?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * size of population is no indicator of bilateral notability. I see the main reasons for a lack of Bangladesh bilateral notability is the fact it's a relatively poor country, they don't have the resources to establish embassies, agreements with other countries and they have little influence outside their own region. Having a population larger than Russia does not somehow advance them up the bilateral ladder. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really buy that, though. They have enough resources to contribute peace-keeping troops (and associated hardware) to UN interventions in Africa but not enough resources to set up diplomatic posts in those same countries? I think the more likely explanation is that while they are happy to commit troops (and can afford to do so), the relationships in question aren't anywhere close to important enough to establish a permanent diplomatic presence. There are certainly diplomatic relationships that are genuinely important to Bangladesh and its people and government but these Bangladesh-random country relations articles are clutching at straws.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. they do have resources if they can send military, but yes little desire to actually establish embassies or bilateral agreements. this again is nothing to do with the size of Bangladesh's population... we all know UK has a much smaller population but much more notable bilateral relations with the rest of the world, because the UK actually promotes bilateralism. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added a couple of sources. Overall notable. --99of9 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep 40% of Fiji's population is of South Asian ancestry, hence making for natural cultural relations between the two countries. Also passes WP:GNG.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, 38% is Indo-Fijian (from India) reflected in the fact that almost 30% of the population of Fiji are practising Hindus. They are not (broadly) "South-East Asians", they are Indians and calling them "of South Asian ancestry" so you can shoe-horn a non-existent Bangladeshi Diaspora into the population of Fiji is silly.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * yes I think Bangladeshis would find it offensive to be classed as Indian people. and somehow trying to suggest this adds to Bangladesh-Fiji relations is plain original research. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Original research? Why on earth would an Oceanic country be interested in informing the Bangladesh Prime Minister on its political situation? Indo-Fijians are not Indian people, they're Fijians with ancestry from undivided British India/modern South Asia.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is 40% according to their 2001 census. Indo-Fijians settled in Fiji during the time of the undivided subcontinent (India, Bangladesh and Pakistan). Bangladesh also has the world's third largest Hindu population. One of the sources includes a Fijian newspaper article on how the Bangladeshi prime minister was informed on Fiji's current situation, which clearly shows the importance attached to ties with Bangladesh. South Asians share strong cultural traits, heck my surname is the same as a former prime minister of Fiji.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If what you say is true why isn't Bengali spoken by Indo-Fijians? The majority of the Indo-Fijians are Hindi speakers and most can speak English. Others are proficient in other Indian languages such as Bhojpuri, Urdu, Tamil, Bihari, Gujarati and Punjabi. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Who said there are no Bengalis in Fiji? 2 --Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment Indo-Fijians aside, Bangladesh is certainly a vital Commonwealth friend of Fiji. Bangladesh is one of the countries which pushed for a return to democracy in Fiji, and elections were held in 2014. So there is clearly a growing political, economic and cultural relationship with this Melanesian country, who are also helping bring rugby union to Bangladesh.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * helping a country in rugby union is hardly big news in the world of international relations, and rugby union is hardly known in Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I said that in a cultural sense. It's growing in popularity.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

one off assistance in a sport that most Bangladeshis have never heard of is really pushing it for adding to the world of international relations. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh supported Fiji's transition to civilian rule, its having growing economic interactions, and cultural exchanges (in sports). Fiji also has historic links with South Asia. Fiji's president has said that his country looks to Bangladesh with a lot interest and is "proud" of its friendship.1 I think you're pushing it by ignoring the world of international relations at large, especially the role of emerging countries. This relationship easily passes WP:GNG. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * other things may add to bilateral relations but I was specifically referring to rugby assistance as pushing it. if it easily passes WP:GNG, there would be unanimous keep vote... which there is not. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But it still does WP:GNG. It's a significant and growing relationship. If it was Tonga or Nauru,I wouldn't give a damn. But its Fiji, the largest Pacific Island economy.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * so Fiji being the largest Pacific Island economy gives it automatic notability for bilaterals? LibStar (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but it does strengthen the case for relations with Bangladesh, which is a traditional friend of Fiji. The Fjians were also among the early recognizers of Bangladesh's independence. Fiji has a prominent role in the Pacific Islands. Its military is also interestingly a major contributor to UN peackeeping.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the article? It goes by good sources.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, passes WP:GNG. Sources have been found during this discussion to add to the article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you have made almost identical style votes in 3 bilateral AfDs in 3 minutes like, it's as if you don't actually read these AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because they've all be relisted at the same time. WP:AGF. Read it. And read it again. It's as if you don't actually have a clue.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite remarkable coming from someone throwing bad-faith accusations about elsewhere.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And who are you? No-one. Next.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The person against whom you've made those bad-faith accusations. You seem quite an angry and troubled individual.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, nothing wrong with this page. Hm2715 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock-puppet.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete *all* of these "Bangladesh-XYZ relations" articles (they should have been bundled, IMO)...and then launch the investigations for meat/sock-puppetry. Pax 08:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:36, 17 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.