Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Trinidad and Tobago 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 03:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Trinidad and Tobago relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Before I tell my reason, I should add a few more:
 * Bangladesh–Rwanda relations
 * Bangladesh–Sierra Leone relations
 * Bangladesh–Senegal relations
 * Bangladesh–South Sudan relations
 * Bangladesh–Kyrgyzstan relations
 * Bangladesh–Laos relations
 * Bangladesh–Namibia relations

I have been supporting deletion discussions on many of these Bangladeshi relations but these ones haven't yet been nominated. They have such little information and they can easily be merged into Foreign relations of Bangladesh. It seems to be a violation of the SPA policy as there really isn't anything going on between the countries at this point in time. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "can easily be merged", then why are you asking for deletion. Merge and redirect is a talk page issue. Having a third deletion discussion a few weeks after closing the previous discussion is disruptive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 31.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep All - This endless series of challenges to subpages of Foreign relations of Bangladesh is getting tiresome and disruptive. Wikipedia is not paper; Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world (population bigger than that of Russia). These subpages keep the already sprawling Foreign Relations page mentioned here from becoming unwieldy. It is a topic of academic interest and clearly encyclopedic, even if the individual subpages viewed in isolation might not at a glance seem to be. Carrite (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also Nigeria which has a bigger population than Bangladesh and there isn't many of these articles on that. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world" is a rather ridiculous reason for keeping, as it gives a free pass for say Bangladesh-Tuvalu relations or indeed any combination regardless of the state of relations, population is not a relevant criteria, if so you would argue small countries have little chance of bilateral relations . I do wonder if Carrite actually made a search for sources. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree (and thanks for putting me in an edit conflict XD). I mean it makes as much sense as to have Bangladesh-Ottoman Empire relations. They should only be created if something REALLY huge happens with them, like India and Pakistan. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The involvement of peacekeepers is well documented for those African countries. Laos is part of the SE Asian region. Delete the rest. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * keep only *Bangladesh–Rwanda relations
 * Bangladesh–Sierra Leone relations
 * Bangladesh–South Sudan relations
 * Bangladesh–Laos relations
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep All Standard almanac entries. An almanac isn't useful unless it is complete. If I were to sort all the bilateral relations by relative importance, these would not be at the top of the list, but someone has to be at the bottom. I am not opposed to taking the smaller entries and merging them onto one page, and using the bilateral titles as redirects. But they should not be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * this is so generic. Did you actually read the articles in question. There is no inherent notability in bilaterals so they don't get an automatic article as standard almanac entries. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all all of these articles should be kept according to the general notability guidelines. There are already multiple references with significant coverage in all of these articles, please have a look at them. Nomian (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all Each one passes WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all, there isn't any real no deletion rationale in this AfD nomination, there is no policy that says that all stubs should be merged. And for what it's worth, almost all Wikipedia material could be merged somewhere else. As stated by Carrite, Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world, and does carry weight internationally. --Soman (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * " Bangladesh is one of the most popolous countries in the world, and does carry weight internationally" is so vague and does not give a free pass to any bilateral with Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Close as Keep a multi-nom like this will never get consensus for deletion of specific articles, since most agree that plenty of these articles are fine. --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all since they all pass general notability guidelines. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:09, 4 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.