Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Pakistan 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. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Chile–Pakistan relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

a country pairing with not even a medium level relationship. many have argued that trade is a good indicator, well trade is less than USD70 million which is about 0.03% of Chile's GDP. in other words Chile is not reliant on Pakistan for trade. whilst the cited article goes on about boosting trade, it says nothing about any meaningful trade at the moment, nor do the countries have any trade agreements. article cites Pakistanis in Chile number 200 which is pitifully small in a country of 17 million. the discussion of a Pakistani arrested or place names after each other is stretching it for bilateral relations. those wanting to keep should provide evidence of actual indepth coverage and not just say "as per economic relations." LibStar (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Chile-Pakistan relationship are new and still developing. Chilean mining companies have already invested billions of US$ in Pakistan mining projects, once these projects are completed, it will generate revenue in 10s of billions of US$,. The limited people traffic between the countries is because of the very vast geographical distance between the two countries. Though Pakistanis make a very tiny portion of the Chilean population, you also need to see that there are just 4,000 Muslims living in Chile. The figure of 200 Pakistanis apply for 2005, latest figures for 2011 can run as high as possibly 250. Pakistani community also owns a mosque in Iquique. Now given the small size of Muslims in Chile, these numbers make an important representation of Muslims in Chile. Chile also recently recognised the Palestinian state, see http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/09/2742457/chile-recognizes-palestinian-state Now given that the Palestinian issue has strong prominence in OIC, of which Pakistan is a lead member, see Pakistan-OIC relations, these are all significant developing relationship.
 * Chile-Pakistan relationship are still developing

The Pakistan-Chile developing relationship are most evident from the fact that Chile is considering to open an embassy in Islamabad, see my main article for reference, whereas Pakistan embassy in Chile was only opened in 2008.

Also I want to know, why Pakistan-Chile article is being considered for deletion, but the Chile–Israel relations enjoys better privilage, even though the Chile–Israel relations cites no trade links, no reference for military links, no Chilean investment in Israel, and zero Israelis living in Chile.

Whats better, 200 Pakistanis living in Chile, or 0 Israelis living in Chile? Just because 0 Israelis live in Chile, would you delete the Chile-Israel relations page?

LibStar, as I can see, you are also one of the author of the Chile-Israel relations page. How do you justify page written by you?

(Jalal0 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

Response to above LibStar (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * there is no evidence billions have been invested, companies say they may invest but have yet to. You can't project future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL
 * Chile–Israel relations see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you don't think it's notable feel free to nominate it.
 * Pakistan-OIC relations is irrelevant here as Chile is not an OIC country.

Response According to the FT article, see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1df0dad6-0145-11df-8c54-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1AdZfyurh, the deal between Pakistan and Chile’s Antofagasta and Canada’s Barrick Gold was worth US$3 billion. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC))


 * [rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/chilean-senator-calls-local-jews-israeli-agents/ this article] says there are 15,000 Jews in Chile, that's substantially more than Pakistanis in Chile. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Response

All Jews are not Israelis, nor are all Israelis Jews. Anyway the article you cited is a blog page, and therefore considered an unreliable piece of information. The OIC discussion is relevant, because non-OIC countries use pro-Islamic political policies (in this case recognition of Palestine) to gain wider and friendly diplomatic and trade deals with Muslim (OIC) countries. And we all know that Pakistan is a key OIC member. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC))
 *  non-OIC countries use pro-Islamic political policies (in this case recognition of Palestine) to gain wider and friendly diplomatic and trade deals with Muslim (OIC) countries is synthesis on your part. As for the article yes it's a blog but I can guarantee there are more Jews than Pakistanis in Israel. Secondly, all Jews have a connection to Israel, and most qualify by heritage for an Israeli passport. Thirdly, the Israeli Government will strongly defend Jewish interests worldwide. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * if you do a search here mfa.gov.il/MFA/Treaties/Amanot.htm you will see Israel has 9 agreements with Chile including a trade agreement. How many does Pakistan have with Chile? LibStar (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yet another non-notable X-Y relations article. Trade and routine diplomatic contacts are not out-of-the-ordinary. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets the Wikipedia threshold for coverage. Using artificial markers like trade and embassies doesn't work. There is minimal trade between North Korea, Cuba, and Iran and the US. Just stick to reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * that's a strawman argument. there are particular reasons why US has notable relations with Cuba, North Korea, Iran because of long standing hostile political tensions and sanctions. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - While there will doubtless be a number of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT complaints voiced about this "X-Y Relations" article, the fact is that this article meets notability guidelines based on current sourcing. Presentation is factual and informative and encyclopedic in tone. Esoteric, but worthy of retention. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Pakistan clearly values Chilean relations and I'd say it passes mildly WP:GNG with multiple, non-trivial reports of the relations.--TM 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's reliable coverage that matters, and as far as that is concerned, I don't see why this article would fail. Pakistan also maintains an embassy which further proves that contact between both countries is fairly visible. Let's not just judge the book by its cover or engage in synthesis such as how many Pakistanis there are in Chile, or how many Jews there are in Chile, what connection they maintain to Israel or how X is better than Y, vice versa to prove the point. Mar4d (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * migration is another indicator of relations. there are very little Pakistanis in Chile compared to the total population of 17 million. that is a fact. it's also stretching it to say it's significant because they are a higher percentage of the small Muslim population in Chile. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This topic and others like it are not nearly so trivial as some would think. It certainly shouldn't be deleted. This one even has a good amount of substantial references. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2011 (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.