Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Taiwan 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 Speedy delete (WP:CSD) as a copyright infringement of this website. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Taiwan relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely un-sourced and contradicts Bangladesh–China relations. No evidence of notability of relations between these countries. Ahecht ( TALK PAGE ) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

PAGE ]] ) 13:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC) PAGE ]] ) 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * deleteActually, looking at it again, it is extremely innacurate and biased, and whould be needed to be re written anyway if teh articel would be staying. Staglit (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete - per nominating editor Bali88 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G3 - obvious misinformation. See eg [] which directly contradicts the main assertion of this page.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a distinction between the PRC (China) and the ROC (Taiwan), and that the article is claiming that Bangladesh cannot officially recognize the ROC (Taiwan) as a Sovereign nation due to their diplomatic relationship with China (I agree that the wording of the article is unclear in this regard). That claim is unsourced and not notable enough for its own article, but not necessarily contradicted by your source. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * On my reading, it claims exactly the opposite. "Bangladesh opted to recognise the ROC" with no indication that this position has changed.  "Although Bangladesh does not recognise the PRC (therefore illegal to travel there with a Bangladeshi passport)" - saying that it is impossible for Bangladeshis to travel to the PRC (mainland China) because Bangladesh "does not recognise the PRC" - exactly the apposite of what you've said.  I agree it's awkwardly worded, but AFAICT the reasonably plain meaning of it is false.  On a side note, my home country doesn't recognise the ROC, either, but it hasn't stopped me travelling there.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That second sentence was changed between when I first saw the article and when I finally got around to tagging and nominating it. I agree with you that the article is flat out wrong as it currently stands. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK


 * Delete - not a notable diplomatic relationship requiring coverage beyond a brief mention in respective Foreign relations of X articles. Stalwart 111  13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete unreferenced and original research. created by an editor who is on a spreee of creating unreferenced bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete It is underlinked and it does not contain any reference. Rinfoli   { *Di§cu$ with me"# } 17:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per misinformation concern. As of now the article content appears to be an opinion piece copied from this forum. -- S M S  Talk 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not just a copy, but an altered copy - the wording is identical except for the reversal of China and Taiwan, e.g. "There is no choice available recognising both the PRC and ROC as legitimate nations, so Bangladesh opted to recognise the PRC" became "...so Bangladesh opted to recognise the ROC". Delete as deliberate misinformation. 123.121.226.9 (talk) 11:25, 27 April 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.