Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Ireland relations

Bangladesh–Ireland 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 By raw !vote counts, there are 3 keeps and 3 deletes. I find the keep reasoning to be slightly more persuasive than the delete reasoning, but not enough so for me to close this as a keep. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. No embassies, agreements or state visits. Relations are mainly limited to "we want to do more" rather than concrete relations. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Coverage of plans to improve relations IS coverage of relations. This subject has received WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources (e.g., 1 2 3). FOARP (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree that even though there is enough coverage, there is no embassies or state visits, the article serves no purpose and fails WP:GNG. Angus1986 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The logic here is somewhat confused. If there is enough coverage in reliable sources, then WP:GNG is passed. Embassies and state visits are not a requirement for an article about diplomatic relations - indeed some of the most important diplomatic relations are between parties that do not even recognize each other (e.g., Taiwan–China relations). FOARP (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Search any book on the foreign relations of Bangladesh. If Ireland appears at all, it's only in a list, such as countries that make up the EU. We do our readers a disservice when we string together non-independent primary sources, routine diplomatic-speak reprinted from government press releases, and dress up the negligible result as "bilateral relations" worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deletion does not insult Bangladesh or Ireland. It doesn't mean they have no contact whatsoever, but anything worth saying about their relationship can be said in a sentence or two in Foreign relations of Bangladesh and Foreign relations of Ireland. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per FOARP. In addition, to respond to this boilerplate nom in the spirit in which it was posted, I must once again note that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed.  To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head.  The GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable") because it makes far more sense to assign encyclopedic infomration about Bangladesh-Ireland relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Bangladesh and Ireland articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ADHOM applies here. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain. I have not made an ad hominem argument of any kind. If you're interpreting my criticism of your work as a personal criticism, I wonder why you wouldn't apply the same logic to your act of stating (by posting all these boilerplate AfD noms) that multiple other editors' work is so valueless that it should be permanently removed rather than being iteratively improved through the wiki process. -- Visviva (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Added: I mean, I think I understand. On the wiki, we are our work, nothing more or less. But that's one of many reasons to approach the uniquely serious matter of deletion with great care and respect for the work other editors have done, rather than in this cavalier manner. -- Visviva (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I previously had no reason to doubt the good faith of this nomination, having had (IIRC) no particular interactions with either the user or the subject area. However, further review shows that the nominator's abuse of the deletion process with regard to bilateral relations articles has been an ongoing problem for more than 10 years! In that context, it seems particularly noteworthy that this user has not sought to notify the article creators or (AFAICT) any of the relevant WikiProjects or taskforces. Such an omission might be excusable from a new editor trying to learn the ropes, but unfortunately something much less savory appears to be going on here.  -- Visviva (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * another WP:ADHOM attack. Look forward to another long winded reply. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'll admit that this article has better sourcing than a lot of the X-Y relations articles that end up at AfD, but I don't think there's enough to pass to the (low) bar of WP:GNG. Only a few of the sources actually directly address the actualy topic of the article--these countries' bilateral relationship--and none of them do so in any real detail. Yilloslime (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yilloslime, what about the articles covering Tasneem's meeting with the Irish president? These seem relatively detailed (i.e., they cover when relations started, what the main topics are, the status of representation etc.? FOARP (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with those articles is not their depth, but their lack of independence. You've probably noticed that the Financial Express is a copy of the UNB agency with paragraphs rearranged and the words "reports UNB" thrown in. They aren't intellectually independent of each other. Where did UNB get their story? UNB writes "the High Commission said". The origin is more explicit in the version distributed by the government-run news agency, BSS. It describes the content as, "according to a press release, issued by the UK's Bangladesh mission, received here today." None of the three is the product of original news reporting. They're republished government PR. WP:GNG calls for sources used to gauge notability to be independent; these sources are not. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - so firstly, the lack of formal diplomatic links or agreements I don't view as particularly persuasive reasoning - working on that is its own worth. The issues with in-depth sources not being independent has some more worth, but I'm inclined to lean towards there being sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2020 (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.