Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–the Gambia 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 delete. czar 17:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Bangladesh–the Gambia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Six references must mean it's notable, right? Upon examination, no. On the occasion of the Gambia's non-resident ambassador presenting his credentials in 2012, the Bangladesh president's office and foreign ministry issued press releases. The state-owned news agency (BSS) and various national newspapers dutifully regurgitated the story. That accounts for five of the sources - reliable, but counted as one source per footnote #3 of WP:SIGCOV, and not independent of the government.

The remaining source covers the sole element of relations that is not routine, a 2014 business delegation from the Gambia, led by their Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment. Searches of the usual types found two other sources that cover the same event. (The whole visit is less improbable when you realize that the minister and ambassador were in India the week before doing substantive deals.) The Atlas of Economic Complexity shows no 2015 bilateral trade. It shows 2014 bilateral exports from Bangladesh at $12,900 (0.00004% of total). One has to go back to 2011 to find bilateral exports from the Gambia, at $5,806 (0.003% of total).

Relations are the same as Bangladesh has with most countries: no resident ambassadors, no state visits, no bilateral agreements, and negligible economic ties. One non-routine event in 40 years (an event which, moreover, has yet to bear any tangible fruit) does not a notable bilateral relationship make. The topic can be and is covered in Foreign relations of Bangladesh and Foreign relations of the Gambia, where such minor relations should be covered rather than in a puffed up stand-alone article. Fails WP:GNG Worldbruce (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Compelling argument for deletion, and my own research corroborates what has found. The five sources all were published within a few days of each other, and all contained significant common language, which would indicate that they all originally came from the same source. It would appear that the trade delegation in 2014 likely cost more than the entirety of combined bilateral exports generated by the trip. I could not find any notability policy specifically on inter-country relations (just individual politicians and diplomats), but I would not think that they would be inherently notable (otherwise we would have 43,472 articles on bilateral diplomacy running around).   C Thomas3   (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete excellent analysis by Worldbruce. a spike of coverage in 2014 but neither country can bother having a state visit or a bilateral agreement in 40 years of relations. this is part of an ongoing spree of Bangladesh minor relations articles. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete I'm convinced by the nominator's argument. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2017 (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.