Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Iceland 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. There is a consensus regarding a lack of significant coverage outside of the primary event in this article. A mention, or possibly section, in Foreign relations of Bangladesh should be sufficient at this time. Nakon 04:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Iceland relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

this article uses synthesis to suggest that a one off visit by the Icelandic President to Bangladesh primarily for a climate change conference somehow translates to notable ongoing relations. there's plenty of "common interest" and want to co-operate type statements but I don't see any evidence of significant trade, embassies, agreements, investment etc. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination - most of the article is speculation that there might one day be a relationship between these countries Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep should be kept according to general notability guidelines, there are 5 references with significant coverage. Icelandic President paid an official visit to Bangladesh in 2008 and held bilateral meetings with the Bangladesh President and the Chief Advisor. Nomian (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nomian, you continue to confuse significant coverage of an event with significant coverage of a relationship. That idea has been debated and dismissed with regard to articles like these, sports "rivalries" and commercial partnerships. Gluing several disparate parts together (though in this case we're talking about just one) to suggest a notable whole is a clear violation of our original research guidelines.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not confused, sources like Relations with Iceland to be strengthened, Iceland wants to import ships from Bangladesh are indeed significant coverage of the relationship, not an event. The visit by the Icelandic President to Bangladesh is a major breakthrough in this bilateral relationship. Obviously relations between two countries often comes in the limelight when a head of state pays an official visit but there are also other references which are not related to the visit by the Icelandic President. And violation of original research will be when someone would try to impose their own set of criteria to assess the notability of an article, ridiculing the general notability guidelines. Nomian (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Our original research guidelines apply to "articles", not assessments of notability and policy. The first few lines of the first article you cite say, "an important outcome of the visit of Iceland president to Bangladesh" (obviously related to the visit) and the second is about the "Newly-appointed Iceland Ambassador to Bangladesh" and the so-called "coverage" is a one-line token mention of relations (kind of) which can't possibly be considered "significant coverage" in any context. Again, your attempts to pass off original research and one-line passing mentions as WP:GNG-passing significant coverage is fairly transparent. In the case of the first, it's not clear you even read it before asserting the opposite of what the source says.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Original research is when an editor includes information which are not supported by the sources, when did I do that? Or when did I "assert the opposite of what the source says"? I would consider such false accusations as personal attacks. Now about the significant coverage thing, are you really saying that sources covering the top level leaders of the two countries discussing about strengthening the relationship, common interests or enhancing the bilateral trade are just one line passing mentions? Seriously Stalwart, even after interacting with you in the countless AfDs, I don't think I will ever understand your logic. It'd be better if we leave it to others instead of having this futile argument. Nomian (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, original research is the publication of original thought or a synthesis of ideas. You're talking about verification. Often, original research is partially supported by sources but the conclusion drawn is something else. That is the case here. Authors have taken sources about one-off visits and extrapolated that (which is the original research) to suggest a broader diplomatic relationship. It's like suggesting two people have "relations" because they once went on a date (years ago) and haven't seen each other since. Wikipedia remains the only place where you can read about these supposed "relations" - a pretty good indication the article represents original thought.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - we need significant coverage of the relationship between the two, not just significant coverage of one event that happens to involve the two. If you want an article about the event, create one (which will still be subject to, and may not pass, WP:EVENT. But this article purports to be about a relationship and no such relationship exists. Wikipedia is the only place you will see such a relationship suggested. That speaks volumes.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, don't know how it's a non-existent relationship when the two countries have ambassadors accredited to each other. -- Zayeem  (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * they're non resident ambassadors. The issue is not no relations but lack of notable relations.LibStar (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

having 2 non resident ambassadors is more of indicator of a lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is clearly a significant relationship. Both are bounded by shared interests on climate change and they cooperate in international fora, as is evident from the Icelandic president's visit to Bangladesh. And there are prospects for a lucrative trade relationship. Iceland, with its fishing fleets, is a high potential market for Bangladeshi shipbuilders. These multilateral and economic dynamics are cornerstones of foreign policy.-Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mutual interest without interaction isn't a sign of "relations" and I can't see how it could possibly be misconstrued as such. Prospects for trade are exactly that; prospects. Crystal-ball-gazing and predicting that such prospects might lead to trade one day isn't what we do around here. Despite the commentary, you haven't actually provided verification of the so-called "significant relationship".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources provide enough verification of generally notable relations. And without interaction? The president of Iceland visited Bangladesh and met with top leaders on the issue of climate change; and was invited to address the nation's premier public university. On trade, the fact that Iceland expressed a keen interest in an industry vital to Bangladesh's growth is certainly worth mentioning.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth a mention perhaps at Foreign relations of Bangladesh but sythesising an entire article around a single item of potential common commercial interest isn't the right way to go about it. Taking a single visit and a single potential area of trade and extrapolating those to suggest a broader historical, commercial and diplomatic relationship is just silly.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This article could be modeled on Iceland-Philippines relations, an example of Iceland's ties in Asia. The trade level can be peanuts, but a relationship exists, isn't that enough? Iceland and Palestine also don't have a "broad historical, commercial and diplomatic relationship". --Rainmaker23 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Existence ≠ Notability.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A relationship existing does not mean an automatic article. There is a spike of coverage when the Icelandic president and not much else. There is no evidence of ongoing relations except the usual vague "want to cooperate " type of statements. You can cite other bilateral articles but it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Given that the entire focus of the article is on the reasons why it would make sense for the countries to have a significant relationship and talks they've had on how they might form a significant relationship, it almost screams "There is not now a significant relationship between these two countries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs)
 * Iceland and Bangladesh are two of the most climate vulnerable countries when it comes to global warming. That already makes their relationship significant.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a non-sequitur. Two countries can have a common problem and have no relationship at all. Do a person vulnerable to starvation in Bangladesh and a person vulnerable to starvation in Burundi have a significant relationship? On the contrary, I'd guess that the two of them know nothing of each other's existence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We're dealing with relations between states, not starving people. And Bangladesh sent peackeeping forces to Burundi for the UN. Climate change is not a third world problem, and Bangladesh and Iceland have a strong common interest here. You keep saying that there is no relationship at all. Yet the President of Iceland made an official visit to Bangladesh to discuss climate change.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because a single one-issue visit isn't the same thing as notable "relations". "Things is common" isn't the same thing as notable "relations" either. Fiji and Portugal are both great places to go for a surf, why no Fiji-Portugal relations? Barbados and Kiribati were both British colonies, why no Barbados-Kiribati relations? Picking a random thing two places have in common and inventing "relations" is as silly as picking two random countries and creating an x-x relations article in the first place.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "We're dealing with relations between states, not starving people." I'm always astonished at the number of people who respond to analogies in this way. Yes, the nature of an analogy is to compare something to something else. An analogy that compares a thing to itself isn't an effective one.
 * The point, as my analogy makes clear, is that from the premise "A and B have the same interest", whether A and B are individuals, communities, countries, ethnic groups, sufferers of two different diseases, or anything else, that A and B are even aware of each other's existence is not a valid conclusion, let alone that they have any relationship, let alone that they have a significant one. To argue otherwise necessarily would lead, for example, to the absurd proposition that any given starving person in Burundi has a significant relationship with any given starving person in Bangladesh. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

they play football in Solomon Islands and also Liechtenstein, therefore a Liechtenstein-Solomon Islands article should be made. bilateral relations are about country to country interactions, not the same as common elements. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Climate change politics is a notable aspect of international relations. In this context, the diplomatic relationship between two most vulnerable countries might well make for an article which passes WP:GNG.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * two most vulnerable countries? Iceland is definitely not on the most vulnerable list, only Bangladesh is, it is pure original research to say Iceland is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 9 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, a potential basis for a relationship is not a relationship. Repeat as necessary. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK sorry not most vulnerable. Iceland won't have 30 million climate refugees like Bangladesh. But that's not an environmental source Libstar. Iceland will be impacted geologically. Climate change politics binds together very diverse countries. Bangladesh is a lead negotiator in climate change negotiations and it would be interesting to see its relationship with Iceland in this context. The Icelandic president's visit for example came on the prelude to the COP15 conference.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Iceland is ranked 119th of countries based on the climate risk index. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Significant geological impact 1 2, apparently there might be no ice on Iceland. But they can offer a model to Bangladesh in adaptation 3 --Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is not-a freestanding topic created out of thin air, this is a legitimate subpage of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. Bangladesh has 156 million people, give or take — more than Russia, not many short of Pakistan. Although we in the west are not accustomed to think of this as a large country, it is, and its foreign relations are an area of specialized academic study. The Foreign relations of Bangladesh page is lengthy and gets sunk in detail, splitting off country by country makes organizational sense. It does create esoteric and seemingly non-sensical pages like this one, but Wikipedia Is Not Paper, after all, and that decision was a matter of editorial judgment. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the population of Bangladesh does not give it a free pass for bilateral articles. Do you have evidence of significant coverage of ongoing relationship? LibStar (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the article says one thing that's about the actual relationship between the two countries, why can't that sentence be in the corresponding cell in the table on the main Bangladesh foreign relations page, representing the sum and substance of what there seems to be to be said right now about relations between the two countries and have no link there at all? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because merging that single factoid over to Foreign relations of Bangladesh would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. We shouldn't use those articles to give coverage to every single state visit and mentioning some of them suggests they are of more importance than all of the others. In this instance, an entire article has been built around one. That's not just a violation of WP:WEIGHT, it's a violation of WP:SYNTH. There is nothing in a single state visit worth merging over to that article. WP:BIGNUMBER is never a good argument for keeping something.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's too insignificant for the large article, then it's all the more too insignificant to serve as the sole fact around which to build its own article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ^^ Nailed it. ^^  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to the closing admin and other voters User:Stalwart111 has been repeatedly removing the sources and blanking the articles (diff: ) just because the sources became dead links but they should know that according to WP:Link rot sources cannot be removed even if they are dead. The links were properly running when I added them in those articles and a google search for those news titles can prove that those sources exist. I feel Stalwart111 is competent enough to understand all the policies of Wikipedia and I'm requesting them to stop removing the sources and blanking the article since this is not conducive to maintain a pleasant editing environment. Nomian (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't "blank" any of the articles, I added information and I fixed the grammar and other errors - you reverted those edits when you blindly (without looking at them) cut-paste reverted my edits. I've walked you through the process of having those sources considered (where they actually exist) but you don't seem to be listening. Your accusations without evidence are a blatant personal attack - I request you strike them.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Diff is already given which clearly shows you have removed the sources and blanking the article. Nomian (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That term doesn't mean what you think it means and your attacks are based on a misreading of policy.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Pax 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I just wish there was a different reason for this. I don't want to keep saying that we don't really need so many Bangladeshi relation pages. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep mostly per Carrite. --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * refer WP:MAJORITY, AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. Three editors have debunked Carrite's vote. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to badger Pax for his/her vote as well? And do you seriously think that after adding a source to the article I didn't come to my own opinion on this? --99of9 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per LargoPlazo. This article is absurd. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, another one of these articles that easily passes WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete *all* of these "ABC-XYZ relations" articles. Pax 08:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't vote multiple times, one vote is enough. Thank you. Nomian (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Derp. I though this topic looked familiar.... Pax 00:29, 13 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, Missvain (talk) 07:32, 14 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.