Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Rwanda relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Number  5  7  15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Rwanda relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The last AfD had far from convincing keep arguments. The whole article is based on a one off business delegation visit in 2012, 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) 13:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It is notable according to the general notability guidelines. Nomian (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * this !vote makes no genuine attempt to establish notability. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomian, you may want to actually read the sources before making such a claim.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are on the bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Rwanda and they have significant coverage on this thing. Thus it satisfies the general notability guidelines. Nomian (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No they aren't and no they don't - they all relate to a single visit and don't come close to WP:GNG with regard to the "relationship" between these two countries (unless said relationship is limited to one visit, ever, which makes it completely insignificant anyway). All that can be verified by those sources is that one visit, making the rest of the article synthesis.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you making this thing so complicated? One visit, two visits, doesn't matter. All of the sources discuss about the bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Rwanda. The general notability guidelines only says that there should be multiple sources with significant coverage on the topic and all of the sources have significant coverage on the Bangladesh-Rwanda relations. Nomian (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not complicated - there's only been one visit. Somehow that single visit is being synthesised and extrapolated to suggest a broader diplomatic relationship between the two countries where one doesn't exist, let alone is notable. The sources discuss that visit. To suggest that on the basis of one day worth of coverage there exists a notable diplomatic relationship between two countries is crazy. That's not "significant coverage". The visit wouldn't even pass WP:EVENT.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

it wasn't even a state visit. LibStar (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - the suggestion this meets the general notability guidelines is nonsense. 3 of the 4 sources were produced on the same day as a result of the same door-stop interview the previous day from the same one-day visit in May 2012. The 4th is a deadlink. A single one-day diplomatic visit does not a diplomatic relationship make. There is no evidence of a long-term, significant, substantive relationship between these two countries, certainly not one that has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Invented (see WP:OR) diplomatic relationships between randomly selected countries ("x - x relations") are not notable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Off topic but I don't know what the "maybe" would be for this type of voting. But on topic, there are some interactions but I still don't know if the page is needed or not. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jackninja5, you've mistakenly pluralised "interaction". You are welcome, of course, to remain neutral. It doesn't serve much of a purpose in determining consensus but it demonstrates that others considered it and couldn't come to a conclusion which may be of assistance to some closing admins.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I guess my vote doesn't count until I do make a decision. I will just add this to my watch list to see if any arguments change my mind. Jackninja5 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The nominator hates this class of articles with a passion. Consensus has generally found that most countries of a certain size have had chronicled, verifiable international relations with more or less every other country on earth. I suggest that Bangladesh is probably big enough to meet this criterion although admittedly this pairing of countries is arcane. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * carrite, that's an WP:ADHOM attack, I don't support the ones with no real coverage, the vast majority of existing bilateral articles (in the 100s) should stay. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Carrite, there are a few of us who fall into that category. I've actively supported (as you probably know) the retention of genuinely notable diplomatic relationships and have created plenty of myself, not least of all as merge targets for silly embassy and consulate articles. Consensus has found that where they pass WP:GNG, they should remain.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm starting to see how these little stubby bits fit into the big picture. This is a sub-article of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. It is part of a web of articles. Admittedly a stub, but Wikipedia is not paper and ripping this out by the roots doesn't make Wikipedia better. Quite the contrary. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's synthesis based on a single event. Ordinarily I would suggest this be merged into Foreign relations of Bangladesh but in this case, merging a single event into a broader article about foreign relations would instantly create a WP:WEIGHT issue.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is the second nomination of this article by the same nominator this year. It closed as Keep the first time around. Notability is not temporary nor have community standards changed. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2nd in 11 months, so if I nominated next year it would 2nd time in 2 years. The first AfD had such generic keep votes. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But consensus can change, especially if the opinions offered up in the first discussion were just plain silly (at least one of which has been blindly repeated here).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't change in 11 months. It is now what it was then. Get back to us in five years... Carrite (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

5 years as a recommended timeframe between nominations? you have to be kidding me. As stalwart correctly points out I took into account the very weak keep arguments last time. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest consensus can but hasn't changed - it's just that nobody happened to notice those nonsense arguments last time or bothered to argue against them. Those sorts of comments in these sorts of AFDs produced some silly results and LibStar is going back and re-nominating some of them, actually rebutting some of what it asserted. The most mild of prodding (above) reveals exactly how weak some of those arguments really were/are.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep We already had a nomination this year and the result was Keep. WP:DELAFD states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." and implicitly suggests that the nominator be blocked in such cases.  As for the topic, no-one seems to have noticed that Bangladesh sent the largest contingent of troops to Rwanda to keep the peace after the genocide.  This seems quite significant and there are certainly plenty of sources which cover this in detail such as this.  Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you obviously want me blocked, 2 nominations in 11 months is disruptive? LibStar (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Andrew Davidson. -- Zayeem  (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep See the changes I just made. I added that bit that Andrew D. mentioned about Bangladesh sending 900 troops to the 1994 genocide.  I also found some articles from yesterday and today about a trade delegation Rwanda sent to Bangledesh and Bangledesh promising to return the favor in the near future.  Lastly I checked the UN treaty database and found they have no bilateral treaties so I added that info.  It seems they have minimal relations but are talking about developing a more extensive partnership in the future.  I feel we should have an article on this on-going developing friendship. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 23:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, the fact that they don't have a relationship substantiated by bilateral treaties is evidence of a relationship? That has to be one of the most bizarre arguments I've seen in favour of keeping one of these diplomati-spam articles!  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Bangladesh were just one of more than 40 countries to commit troops to that broader UN effort, apparently well short of 10% of the overall contingency sent, much of which was after the fact. Just more lazy synthesis of minor claims glued together to suggest a notable whole.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

An ongoing friendship based on a one off business delegation visit in 2012, where lots of promises were made but no action in ensuing years. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Foreign relations of Bangladesh &mdash; There isn't clear general notability of these relations as far as being substantial enough for a standalone article, and there's plenty of space and convention for this in the existing article. While several others have cited that this is a stub, an actual stub implies that there's the ability to expand it with significant amounts of content that already is available. That does not seem to be the case here; this seems to be all there is for now (which is an issue of WP:CRYSTAL). As a side note, a year's delay is more than sufficient for a re-nomination, even moreso when the first AfD was a non-admin closure with small turnout. -- slakr  \ talk / 22:01, 10 January 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.