Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Luxembourg 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. Are the sources substantial enough? It is a very subjective question that this discussion hinges on, but there is clearly no strong consensus either way. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Luxembourg relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. Luxembourg is such a small country, it has hardly any significant relations outside of Europe, USA. the article is full of the usual we want to cooperate statements rather than evidence of actual relations. like significant trade, migration, embassies, agreements, or visits by leaders. no evidence of these at all. 2 of the 3 sources merely refer to the one announcement by 2012 by the Business Chamber of Commerce in Luxembourg LibStar (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 7.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 00:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Relationships between nations, if there is anything there, is pretty notable. In this case though there doesn't look like enough for more than a blurb. Sources are everything in these cases and they don't seem to be there for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - AO is right; relationships between nations, if there is anything there, are pretty notable but there needs to be something there. In this case, there isn't. There are plenty of instances of notable relationships between countries but not every random combination of X-Y relations is notable. WP:GNG still applies. Stalwart 111  12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:GNG, there are three sources with indepth coverage.--Zayeem  (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That "indepth coverage" all relates to a single one-day visit. All three cover the same diplomatic non-event. A single visit on a slow news day does not international relations make. Stalwart 111  05:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * and the meeting included no government officials from either country, so the article hinges on a one off meeting of business men promising to do more but not actually doing anything else.

LibStar (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I think articles on the relations between every set of two countries is vital and should be created as an article. Even if it is to say "there is essentially no relationship between these two countries". It is important information nonetheless. I hope to god no similar articles have already been swept through the AFD process because I firmly believe they all deserve a place on Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * how is this strong keep? This is just a WP:ITSNOTABLE argument with not one source or notability guideline cited. Over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. There is no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing for a rule, not an example. I am saying that regardless of what the specifics of this relationship are, the fact that there are two countries, and the notion that bilateral relationships are exceedingly important and influential, (I'm not ashamed to say it) give this type of article automatic notability status. This, I firmly believe. I am not arguing for or against what happens to be in this particular article at the moment. That is a discussion for another time and place (the talk page). But as already stated, regardless of whether it is the most comprehensive relationship or the most insignificant, these two countries' existence and ability to have bilateral relationships makes them (or their absence) rather notable indeed. So I would say those 100 or so other deletions got it wrong.--Coin945 (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should then ask for a deletion review of those 100+ deleted. It seems WP:ILIKEIT rather than referring to any established consensus or notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Silence equals vagueness and misinformation. I would rather be told a straight up "X and Y have little to no bilateral relationship to speak of" than be kept in the dark (and unable to locate any article with any information on the topic) due to not being able to find conclusive evidence to support wither side of the coin. So yes, if it came to it, I would fight for the right for this type of article to exist. But as it seems like a large battle, and quite frankly I neither have the time nor the energy to invest into this, I will humbly reject your offer for a deletion review. But it doesn't change my view. I would highly encourage the creators of those articles to do it though.--Coin945 (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All a closing admin is going to see of your !vote is a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE argument with zero attempt to find sources or point to a previous consensus establishing inherent notability. It would be like me going around and saying every police station is notable strong keep! despite no inherent notability established. LibStar (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Existence ≠ Notability is also relevant. Where's the pass against WP:GNG? We don't just include something because people find it interesting. I've used it before but how is it any different to random combinations of animals? I like parrots and sharks and both have probably appeared in the same pirate movies. Why not create Shark-Parrot relations? Short answer; doesn't meet inclusion requirements. Stalwart 111  11:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I'm not sure you understand my point. To justify this article's existence in Wikipedia, I don't have to show how strong the Bangladesh-Luxumberg relation actually is. What I *would* need to do though is demonstrate that bilateral relationships are very important and influential. Then, as already explained, regardless of how strong or weak this particular relationship is, the notion of bilateral relationships between two countries is shown to be automatically notable.--Coin945 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Think of it like this: List of ship decommissionings in 1996 is an article that includes only one entry. I'm sure there is an article of this nature that includes 0 entries. Why would such an insignificant article event exist? A list with only one entry...what? It's because of completeness. Because the very nature of a ship decommission is inherently notable, so whether 100 or 0 happened in a year, that fact should be known to a reader. It's the same with this. Whether or not the relationship is very significant or not very significant, the type of relationship itself is notable, so its presence or absence should be documented.--Coin945 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And in response to the Shark-Parrot analogy, if you demonstrate that inter-special relationships are as important and influential as bilateral ones, then I would agree with you. I created Dog–cat relationship, so I certainly think there's merit to that discussion.--Coin945 (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Coin 945, in the time spent arguing here you could have searched for sources that could establish notability instead of trying to make something automatically notable when it isn't. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think about what I've said?--Coin945 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It does nothing to establish notability of thear bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted, the Wikipedia articles on Bilateralism, Bilateral trade, and Bilateral treaty are pretty slim, so perhaps even Wikipedia does not yet demonstrate how important such relationships are...--Coin945 (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete- Most of these X-Y relations articles are very bad, and this is no exception. The choice of sources looks like desperate barrel-scraping to me. Much of the claimed notability comes from stuff about BBCCL, but I looked at the organization's website and it appears not even to be affiliated with the government of Bangladesh. Reyk  YO!  05:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article should be kept according to Wikipedia's General notability guideline since the references in the article are from reliable, secondary sources and have significant coverage about the topic. Nomian (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's been addressed above - the sources don't provide coverage of anything except an unofficial one-day visit. All three sources relate to the same non-notable event and don't provide any coverage at all (let alone significant coverage) of a "relationship" between these two countries. I'm not sure it would even qualify as significant coverage of a relationship between the individuals involved, or the individuals themselves, for that matter. Taking multiple instances of coverage of a single event and synthesising them together to suggest a notable long-term diplomatic relationship is dishonest and contrary to WP policy. Stalwart 111  08:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The bottom scraping of references here didn't come up with much: a tiny amount of speculation about the possibility of relations in the future, so this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Relationships between nations are a core encyclopedic feature that is notable. The continuing campaign to eliminate these articles was, and still is, distressing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you are arguing for inherent notability when there is no consensus for this in bilateral articles. Have you actually examined the article, as it stands it is based on one non official meeting of businessmen. Is there actual significant coverage of ongoing relations? LibStar (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Votes that do not discuss the state of the article or the availability of sources are unlikely to influence the closer's decision. Your vote consists of nothing but a false assertion that bilateral relations articles are inherently notable, and and an equally false and completely unwarranted attack on the nominator. You have not mentioned this article at all. How, for instance, do you address my finding that most of the sources talk about the BBCCL, which actually has no affiliation with the government of Bangladesh? Reyk  YO!  02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * very well said Reyk. WP:ADHOM attacks do nothing to add to a keep vote. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "adhom" here. There is just the observation that when a single editor consistently goes through articles in the same very narrow topic area and consistently sends them to AfD for the same consistent rationaile that goes against part of the Five Pillars (the part where Wikipedia is not just an encylopedia but also a gazzeteer), then there comes a time to start calling a spade a spade. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes because some of these are not notable in fact over 100 have been deleted. A few editors have called for inherent notability of bilaterals yet there is no established guideline for this. If you want to argue keep, show some sources like other editors have done. It is still ADHOM because you single out me obviously want me to stop when I'm quite within my rights to nominate as not every bilateral s kept. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, I added details about the recognition of Bangladesh in the backdrop of the 1971 war. I would invoke WP:PAPER here, there is no inherent value in deletion and this article has a scope for expansion. --Soman (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't everyone recognise them then? Luxembourg recognised them when the rest of Europe did, didn't they? How does that confer notability? There's some real clutching at straws here. Again, where is the basic coverage required to meet WP:GNG? Stalwart 111  11:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all countries recognized Bangladesh at once. There was a lot of geopolitics around this, and US, USSR and China all had different takes on this. Notably the wave of Western European recognitions (which panned out over a few weeks) came several months after the declaration of independence. Luxembourg might be a small country, but is not irrelevant in diplomacy. Through having an article, an interested reader might be able to find this information more easily. Deletion should not be an end in itself. --Soman (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what we have Foreign relations of Bangladesh for, and Foreign relations of Luxembourg for that matter. This is just a couple of diplomatic (not even) tid-bits synthesised together to form a whole. There's nothing specifically notable about the relationship between these two countries in particular and suggesting there is is just plain dishonest. Stalwart 111  13:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if this recognition occurred, I see no evidence of a notable ongoing relationship. As stalwart says, recognition can be mentioned in 1 line in the foreign relations article. And secondly WP:PAPER, doesn't give a free pass to article creation, my local fire station got mentioned a few times, does that deserve an article? LibStar (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not, partly because your local fire station has no notability beyond the reach of your own community. But the real problem with starting an article on your local fire station is that you would end up in reproducing gossip about individuals that are not public figures. In the case of diplomacy, it is a relation between sovereign states. And the diplomacy of small states is also important. This article could also contain material on Bangladeshi diaspora in LUX, work of Luxembourg development agency and NGOs in Bangladesh (see for example, http://www.friendship.lu/a-propos ), etc.. This is not about counting google hits, but about whether the article subject has a scope for expansion. --Soman (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * scope for expansion? I think next to zero, you are the only keep !voter to actually provide any expansion. I found no evidence of visits by ministers even government officials, trade, agreements, migration, military or diplomatic co operation. There is no chance of expansion, that's why it is at AfD. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "You would end up in reproducing gossip about individuals that are not public figures" - you mean like details about private non-notable business-people from one country visiting another and suggesting those private visits are actually part of some formal relationship between two nation states? Like 75% of this article (100% of it before this AFD). I suppose it could be "expanded" to include more examples of non-notable private visits between the two. Hmm. Stalwart 111  15:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed you added the grand duchess' visit, this was in her capacity representing UNESCO and not the Luxembourg government. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But the visit was announced at a Bangladesh - Luxembourg diplomatic gig, so I think it counts as part of currying favour with one another: "This was disclosed when Syed Moudud Ali, Bangladesh Ambassador to Belgium concurrently accredited to Luxembourg, presented his credentials to the Grand Duke recently" (23 July 2003, United News of Bangladesh Limited). --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And during the visit, she and her ambassador met with the president and foreign minister (separate meetings), where they said "her visit would have a beneficial effect on the existing Bangladesh-Luxembourg relations". So they think it counts. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I found a few new sources that confirm that the High Duchess' visit included meetings with the President and Foreign Minister, where they talked of their bilateral relations. I've also added a note that the only UCITS-compliant investment vehicle in Bangladesh stocks is based in Luxembourg. --99of9 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 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.