Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Poland 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Poland relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

there is not enough evidence of a significant ongoing relationship, 2 of the sources provided are dead links. then there's the usual want to co-operate to more trade, import jute from Bangladesh, yes workers have gone to Poland but Bangladeshi workers are found in lots of countries. Poland talked about having an embassy in Bangladesh but it never happened. 2 visits by ministers in over 40 years of relations shows the importance of the relations. I'm sure someone will recycle the nonsensical "Bangladesh is one of the most populous nations therefore it gets a guaranteed bilateral article" rubbish. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a close call, but feel that the references are strong enough for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * interesting you popped up here even before it's deletion sorted. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is that so interesting? Anyone who happens to look at the article just after it has been nominated for deletion might do that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

because Richard Norton has popped up at many articles I've edited on in the last 24 hours. Not a coincidence. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the whole point of nominating articles for deletion to get people to look at them and help decide which one's stay and which one's go. You should be encouraging people to participate, not chasing them away when their opinion is different from yours. Respect the participation, even when the opinion differs from yours. You tend to be monothematic and edit, and nominate, mostly bilateral articles. On most AFDs you tend to see the same participants. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have no issue of you turned up after a deletion sort, but in the same 24 hour period you deprodded an article I prodded that wasn't about bilateral relations, another article you edited literally 7 mins after I edited. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

yes it happens after deletion sorting you see the same people, not the same editor turning up at at least 3 different articles I've edited in the past 24 hours. And in this case deletion sorting didn't occur yet. LibStar (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea of the truth, but it's possible that he has a whole series of bilaterals watchlisted. I do. --99of9 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * or that he is following me by editing 3 separate articles on completely differently topics in the same day, all 3 articles by sheer coincidence, I was the last person to edit. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep article should be kept according to the general notability guidelines, six references with significant coverage already there. Nomian (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I've said before and will say again, Bangladesh is one of the most populous nations on the planet (more people than Russia), its foreign relations are the subject of scholarly study, and this is not intended as a free-standing page, but rather as a subpage of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you've recycled this several times "is one of the most populous nations on earth, with a population bigger than that of Russia". the population in itself does not give Bangladesh a free pass to a bilateral article to any other country. does it now mean Bangladesh-Guatemala, Bangladesh-Nauru is now notable? LibStar (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * which scholarly study has discussed Bangladesh-Poland relations? LibStar (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added a few new references - they were easy to find. --99of9 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Growing economic ties. Poland was also one of the earliest countries to recognize Bangladesh.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * being one of the earliest countries to recognise Bangladesh doesn't advance WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Poland played, as member of the UN Security Council at the time, an important role in the 1971 Bangladesh war. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZBws32j4zwYC&pg=PT182 and https://books.google.com/books?ei=Kd7TVJbiAou0UbjbgIAJ p. 173. At same time Poland supplied the Bangladeshi side with armaments, https://books.google.com/books?ei=Kd7TVJbiAou0UbjbgIAJ p. 231. Poland has an embassy in Dhaka since established an embassy in Dhaka in 1972, https://books.google.com/books?ei=ad3TVNfCH9LnaP2GgdAH p. 93. See also https://books.google.com/books?ei=b-DTVJb0EtHfaM3ygKgM p. 90, https://books.google.com/books?id=J0pJAAAAIAAJ p. 119. In short, LibStar has again failed to observe WP:BEFORE --Soman (talk) 21:31, 5 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.