Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–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. X clamation point  05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus–Pakistan relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. No real relations of which to speak. No secondary sources given.  Jd 027  (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant relationship does exist, and I have given secondary sources.  The two countries signed a maritime pact, and Pakistan has supported the Republic of Cyprus on matters involving Northern Cyprus. Cool3 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've produced a preview of an archive of a maritime agreement signed in 2005, reported by China's crackpot news agency, Xinhua. And this is not a secondary source.  Jd 027  (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I presented the Xinhua as it was the easiest to link to, and while I might not trust them on a story on Tibet, calling them a crackpot in this context is ridiculous. If you like other sources better, here's a story from the Financial Times about the same agreement (via another source). .  Another from the Daily Times   Here are several articles about the significance of Pakistan-Cyprus issues in the context of the northern Cyprus issue:   (Subscription required for full text).  Given Pakistan's importance as the world's largest Muslim power, and the salience of the Northern Cyprus - Cyprus issue, Cypriot-Pakistani relations are important, and documented in secondary sources.   Cool3 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N--I could not find non-trivial coverage of this topic in independent secondary sources. Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example this, this, this, this, this, etc. Yilloslime T C  16:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established the usual way. No reason has been presented to treat this as a highly exceptional case, rather than follow usual practice. Wily D  18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - in case you haven't noticed, the "usual practice" has been deletion on these. A maritime agreement is part of the normal course of international relations, and not especially significant. If the Northern Cyprus bit is truly relevant, give it a mention at Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus. - Biruitorul Talk 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For almost every pair of countries, if one bothers to look they find more than enough sources to surpass WP:N. Some AFDs no one has bothered to look, and a few pairings really don't have them (off the top of my head, I'd guess Equatorial Guinea and Nauru would probably not make it, for instance), but by and large bilateral pairings pass WP:N.
 * Keep. I'm with WilyD: once notability has been established and sources provided, it's hard to justify deleting the article.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The maritime agreement, signed in the capital of Cyprus between the two nations did it for me. Unlike most of these articles, we have an editor (Cool3) who took on the challenge to find proof of international relations.  I'd add that "the usual practice" doesn't mean that we delete everything or keep everything.  We look at each case individually, which is why these aren't nominated in bunches.  Mandsford (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The maritime pact barely pushes this over the line into notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, actually they do have real relations of which to speak. Hilary T (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Hilary T (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C  19:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally. When the message is unassailable, all that's left is to attack the messenger. Wily D  20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could both of you please review WP:AGF? Hilary, I helped get them deleted because they failed WP:RS, WP:N and any number of other policies. WilyD, pointing out that someone may be an SPA is not an "attack" on someone; it's standard practice in AfD debates. If you don't like the spa template (which I certainly didn't create), nominate it for deletion, but don't impugn my motives. You should know better. - Biruitorul Talk 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Standard practice or not, it's an ad hominem. If you don't wish your arguments to be called ad hominems - don't make ad hominem arguments. Wily D 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The template was created in July 2006 by User:Netsnipe (who became an administrator a month later). It's been used almost 3,000 times. It was speedily kept twice. You may think it an ad hominem, but it clearly has widespread community support, and serves its purpose well. - Biruitorul Talk 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. One reference isn't "significant coverage" as required to meet WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If diplomatic relations are not notable, then why have Template:Foreign relations of Cyprus and Template:Foreign relations of Pakistan? As long as Category:Bilateral relations of Cyprus and Category:Bilateral relations of Pakistan are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted.  I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete according to this article, Cyprus-Pakistan relations are so unimportant that neither country has an embassy in the other. If Pakistan and Cypress don't care, why should we?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2009 (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.