Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Malawi 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Malawi relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is really not much to these relations, no resident ambassadors, no ambassadors, no visits by ministers or leaders. And 2 of the articles cited refer to the accepting of the non resident high commissioner, withe the usual want to cooperate statements. this source makes zero reference to Bangladesh, so it's just barrel scraping LibStar (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep All the references have significant coverage about the topic so it meets the general notability guidelines. I don't know what made the nom say this source makes zero reference to Bangladesh that has a title "Bangladesh pledges to invest in Malawi". Nomian (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * apologies, I meant this source. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources in article show that the relationship meets WP:GNG. I am as baffled as by the statement of nominator about the link.-- cyclopia speak!  17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is part of drive by tagging by . His motivation is more about policy than notability. It would have been sweet if one article could summarize all diplomatic relations of Bangladesh. Problem is, same info should be replicated to the other party. It is important to archive bilateral diplomatic relationships between all states. Even if there is a null relationship, an article should state that there is nominal relationship, with no visit and no embassy etc. Question of notability is rather a "Wikipedia bilateral diplomacy articles policy" issue, which should be discussed somewhere in sum, rather than having all these AfDs, case by case. –  nafSadh did say 19:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * you haven't actually given any reason on how notability is met for this bilateral combination. Not all are notable, hence they are assessed on a case by case basis. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Adequate sourcing showing to merit a GNG pass. I wouldn't spend time writing an article on this particular topic, but we all have our esoteric interests. Chances are than any two random countries of any significant size are capable of satisfying GNG for an article such as this. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 8 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.