Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Latvia 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   keep. Keep. The delete arguments are mostly "this isn't important", but our criteria for establishing notability is based on references to reliable sources, and those seem to exist in sufficient numbers. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Latvia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the whole article is based on a single one day visit to Latvia by the Bangladeshi foreign minister. That has been the only minister visit between the 2 countries in 21 years of relations. There is no evidence of significant ongoing relations between the countries except this one day news spike. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS--114.81.255.40 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:GNG, five references with indepth coverage. -- Zayeem  (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 5 references referring to one day of relations. And 2 of them are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - none of the 'facts' or 'events' in the article add up to anything of the slightest notability. Bored mumbler in suit shakes hands with minor numpty from somewhere or other. Gee whiz. Small brief splash noticed in very small pond when someone puts on their sunglasses. Gosh. If we can't delete this under the GNG then it's an utterly useless criterion. Notable? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep You gotta be kidding! In 2012, Bangladeshi foreign minister paid an official visit to Latvia, Bangladesh and Latvia have signed an MoU recently on agricultural sector, all these things show that the relationship has become significant and is growing at a good pace. The article also meets the general notability guidelines since there are several references from reliable sources with significant coverage. I can show you more, , , , , . There are many information to add. Nomian (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * yep one single visit in one day by a foreign minister is the only visit in over 20 years of relations. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a recent visit which indicates there are more to come. And most importantly the article meets general notability guidelines, so according to the policies it should be kept. Nomian (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"More to come" is WP:CRYSTAL. most of those additional sources are primary, they refer to a new ambassador who isn't even based in Latvia. Offering condolences about the ferry disaster is WP:ROUTINE coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is obviously notable and adequately sourced. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An article about the relations between countries that have officially recognized eachother, have made an official visit, and have signed a written agreement is more than just "news" and there is no good reason for deleting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * all in just one day of 21 years of relations, just one official visit, it wasn't an agreement, it was a mere memorandum of understanding. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * merge I agree that single meetings between country representatives, even if they result in some useful agreements, do not deserve their own article. The possible exception may be meetings that result in major treaties (cf Helsinki_Accords) but these are rarely single events. This information should be merged into the page on Bangladesh, preferably in the area "Foreign relations and military" which is heavy on military and rather light on foreign relations. In fact, those two topics could be split, and there would seem then to be room for a more in-depth discussion of foreign relations. LaMona (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not only a single meeting, I have shown other sources. And the foreign relations section of country articles are only reserved for neighboring or rival countries and countries with strategic partnership or a strong alliance. Nomian (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.-- cyclopia speak! 17:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 06:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This is a rather borderline article. I'm ultimately going to vote keep because there was an official state visit and an official treaty signed between the two nations, in addition to some other interactions over the years. Likewise, quite a few sources have been presented. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * not a state visit. A state visit means prime minister or president visit. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2014 (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.