Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Rwanda 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Rwanda relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the article is based on 3 sources, one of them quite short and I see no evidence of actual notable relations, there is talk of potential and "want to co-operate" type statements than actual co operation, but there is no significant trade, no visits by leaders or ministers, no embassies, no agreements. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 22 January 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) 07:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * you've recycled this argument from another AfD how about actually commenting on these 2 countries. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the relations are very small. And the small number of sources merely confirm a desire for relations not actual relations. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I found it a similar deletion discussion to that one which was finally kept, so I thought to follow the same argument. Did I say anything wrong? Nomian (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - articles need to have at least 2 reliable sources with indepth coverage to pass WP:GNG, this one has 3 of them excluding the short one. -- Zayeem  (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - has enough reliable sources. It baffles my why you would want Wikipedia to be unnecessarily smaller. I don't find it in the guidelines you cite any rationale for the deletion of less mainstream articles. Pikolas (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * do the sources actually describe any noteworthy relations, the sources merely say there is potential? We don't keep articles for the sake of it, see WP:LOSE and WP:EVERYTHING. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 26 January 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.