Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Finland 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   delete. Nja 247 08:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Finland relations

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

non resident ambassadors, the Finnish foreign ministry doesn't even say anything about Bangladesh relationship LibStar (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep pending the result of the discussion at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, which is directly related to the issue of notability, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Nomination for deletion is pre-mature and could preempt and poison the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved. Wikipedia will not implode if these articles exist while discussion is on going. Martintg (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM is not a reason. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of third-party sources about the relationship that confirm its notability. - Biruitorul Talk 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly contrived, simply replicating a random pairing "model" which has by now come to resemble spam. Dahn (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 09:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 09:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, how could we presume that there are significant reliable sources if the Finns themselves don't pay attention to it? Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nor does it appear to be very significant among the Bengalis either | Bangladesh paper website and | 2004 article which noted that "The trade between Finland and Bangladesh is insignificant." I consider most of these random pairings to be vandalism, but they have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than on the musings of a "task force".  Mandsford (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started, it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: The two "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a bit of a catch-22? In order to save it, you require that the centralized discussion resolve itself in a timely manner. Yet you state the centralized discussion depends on the result of this vote. Does WP:Deadline apply here with regard to your claim that we should not wait for the centralized discussion to resolve? -Moritheil (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Our policies and guidelines codify consensus. Their purpose is to streamline those discussions whose outcome is predictable based on consensus in previous similar situations. Subject-specific notability guidelines don't legislate notability criteria, they interpret the general notability guidelines for a specific situation. And their content obviously depends on previous case law. Here is where this case law is being produced.
 * In the current charged atmosphere (created by mass-creation of obviously non-notable articles, which caused a predictable "deletionist" reaction, which in turn caused a predictable "inclusionist" counter-reaction), if we ever get a specific notability guideline (and that's far from sure, as we have even have people violently opposing any such guideline), it will either contain only the most obvious guidance such as: "The relations between two countries that most people have never heard of, which have no diplomatic relations, no trade, no wars, and lie at opposite ends of the world are normally not notable. The relations between two countries that have a long history of significant trade and several wars, or which have had a book published on their relations, are notable." In which case it is completely irrelevant to this AfD. Or it will be the result of a compromise that tries to draw general principles from the outcomes of dozens of AfDs. Neither side will like such a guideline, but at least it will prevent the fighting.
 * In the first case it makes no sense to wait because the guideline will be irrelevant. In the second case waiting for the guideline will either unfairly change what the guideline says (because "no consensus/wait for guideline" is interpreted as "keep") or restrict what it can talk about (because "no consensus/wait for guideline" is interpreted as "no idea what we should do in this case"). --Hans Adler (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Sorry, but all I get out of the arguments is that some of the voters for deletion hate all X-Y relations articles, while Mr. Adler explains above that he is undertaking some kind of effort to revise policy.  In either case there is some kind of agenda present so it seems WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:JDLI would apply. Furthermore, WP:Deadline, so there is no need to rush to delete. -moritheil Talk 04:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am revising policy? Per WP:POLICY, new guidelines are not normally allowed to contradict existing policies or guidelines. I don't "hate all X-Y relations articles", I evaluate them all per the general notability guideline (in practice none of them was justified per WP:Summary style yet, which would be the alternative justification for existence). Just because the 400 articles on various values of X and Y are highly notable doesn't mean all (or most) of the 20,000 articles on X–Y are notable. See User:Hans Adler/Relations between Helmut Kohl and Kurt Tucholsky for a demonstration of where that type of argument could lead us. You haven't given a single reasonable argument for keeping the article. You are merely making assumptions about other editors' motivations, calling policy based deletion !votes (hint: the first two sentences in my !vote) "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT", and claiming that lack of notability can be healed through editing or waiting (the latter is theoretically possible but very unlikely in this case: the two countries don't even have mutual embassies; also see WP:CRYSTAL). If you don't add any reasoning that actually has to do with the article I predict that your !vote will be disregarded by the closer. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:47, 4 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.