Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Pakistan relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Estonia–Pakistan relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

this was previously deleted by strong consensus in 2009 and I see no real improvement in the article. most of it is directly from the Estonian foreign affairs website. which says there are no embassies, no agreements whatsoever, there has been no leader visits. two way trade stands at less than 10 million euro. yes Estonia helped with the Pakistani earthquakes but sending 2 people and donating 64,000 EUR is a very small contribution to overall efforts. There is almost no third party coverage of actual bilateral relations. those wanting to keep must show evidence of actual significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete While Pakistan's relations with many (though not all) of the world's nations are important, there doesn't seem to be either co-operation or hostility between these two.  "In 2009 Pakistan was ranked as Estonia’s 77th export partner and 37th import partner" says quite a bit about this.  As LibStar points out, there are no embassies, agreements, or historical background.  I think 64,000 Euro works out to a little less than $50,000 in U.S. dollars.  I think that the author has made some great contributions on Pakistani topics, and at 170,000,000 people and some nukes, Pakistan is larger and tougher than most Westerners realize.  However, there's nothing much to say here that can't be said in one of the foreign relations articles.  Mandsford 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * € 64,000 is 87 027.2 U.S. dollars. -- Sander Säde 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got that one backward, € 1 = $1.33 rather than $1 = € 1.33 (using the exchange rate I was looking at).  If it had just been $87,028.00 I might have said keep.... Mandsford 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, it may be borderline notable, but the article can be re-created if/when there are better sources and topics. Just one article view in January 2011 before today speaks for itself. -- Sander Säde 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment When these articles first came up, I did the math and the number of combinations of sovereign states (not to mention the bru ha ha over the rest) was quite unmanageable. Is there an alternate location to consolidate basic diplomatic/economic information between states? So:
 * when recognized each other
 * embassies/missions
 * annual trade volume
 * on sentence on any current developments
 * This would be helpful as the objection here is going to be that useful information is being deleted. Knowing relations are not significant is as informative as knowing they are. We will have a more constructive discussion here if we focus on where the information belongs specifically, that is, this should be a "merge" discussion, not a "delete" discussion. We might even set a precedent for handling these low priority relationships. I do agree that the relationship is not substantive enough for a dedicated article. Now that "X–Y relations" articles are here to stay, we should have some guidelines for when a relationship merits an article and when basic information on a relationship belongs in an alternate location (and what/where that specifically is). P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, those x and y relationships that aren't notable are referred to in the articles called "Foreign relations of x" and "Foreign relations of y". You, or anyone else, can merge some of the information to the F.R.O. of Estonia or F.R.O. of Pakistan article, or both.  I don't think that there's ever been a time when these were not "here to stay".  I think people assume that that LibStar wants to delete all x-y relations articles, which is not the case.  Finally, there have been poorly managed discussions before, back in 2009, that solved nothing.  Only those people who regularly look at the "Centralized discussion" box at the top of the deletion log page were ever aware of them, and none of the AfD Forum participants were ever told about them until they'd gone along for awhile, so the two groups did not communicate.  At that point, one of the Centralized guys would say "close your discussion until we're done talking" and the AfD guys would say "no, don't think so, we're working here".  Nobody likes to be told to shut up.  Maybe if one of the Centralized Discussion dudes wants to include folks like me and LibStar, Biruturol, Norton, etc. at their next party, "we" might work something out.  Until then, it's a case-by-case thing.  Mandsford 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks Mandsford for your kind words. yes I do not believe all bilaterals to be non notable. just wish people spent more time on more notable combinations. we tried in the past to come up with some guidelines but some people just want to keep all bilaterals so it didn't go anywhere. LibStar (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Pakistan. Information is sourced though not particularly notable. Mention at respective foreign relations articles and redirect to those pages.--TM 16:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * are you suggesting redirect? if so you can't redirect to 2 articles. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as a recreation of a previously deleted page with no improvement to its virtual dictionary-entry content. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment from the author - The entire content of this article was in fact copied from the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs webpage on Estonia-Pakistan relations, which readers can read from Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia-Pakistan relations. Certainly, if the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs consider this relationship worthy of notability then I can not see, why not Wikipedia sees such relationship worthy of notability. It is also noteworthy that the Ministry has not created any bilateral relations page with other major OIC countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh and Nigeria, and with any OPEC country. I will choose to abstain from any voting this time. (Jalal0 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC))
 * the fact that the Estonian foreign ministry does not cover other nations is irrelevant. All articles are assessed on its merit. Foreign affairs websites are a form of primary source. Lifting content from one website is hardly advancing notability. As per WP:GNG this article lacks third party coverage in multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 02:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

(Jalal0 (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Argument 1: Based on the Other stuff exists policy, I suggest the page be kept. Comparision to the Estonia – Sri Lanka relations be made. Consider the fact that in 2007, bilateral trade between Sri Lank and Estonia was less than 2million Euros, whereas Pakistan-Estonia trade was nearly 9million Euros. A significant difference in favour of Pakistan.
 * Argument 2 I had initially included quite plenty of information in the original page. A lot of information had in fact be deleted by other members, to make the relationship look insignificant. Moderators are requested to read detailed information from this link: It will be apparent that there is more information then whats currently displayed on the Wikipedia page.
 * Argument 3 Pakistan current policy is focussing to gain Free Trade Agreement with European Union. Based on this policy, Pakistan is even trying to maintain good diplomatic relations with European microstates such as Liechtenstein. See P.R. No. 172/2007, Date: 28/06/2007, PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS BY AMBASSADOR AT LIECHTENSTEIN. Estonia too, though a small country, is still a member of the European Union, and therefore Pakistan values such relationship.
 * your arguments fail to show how there is significant coverage that is required to satisfy WP:N or WP:GNG. Nobody has found any third party sources, you keep citing the one primary source. Lastly saying that relations with Liechenstein somehow makes Estonia-Pakistan notable is pure synthesis. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * similarly, Pakistan-Paraguay was recently deleted because of lack of third party coverage, the same standard should apply here. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There were several other reasons as well behind the deletion of Pakistan-Paraguay relations page. Lets not count on one-sided truth. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Redirect to either Foreign relations of Estonia or Foreign relations of Pakistan. Ahmetyal 19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you cannot redirect to two articles. which one? LibStar (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Foreign relations of Estonia then. Ahmetyal 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale behind choosing which page to merge this article with? (Jalal0 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Comment In this case, the article was written by an editor who has made many good contributions about topics related to Pakistan. The naming protocol on the nation x and nation y articles goes alphabetically, rather than by which nation is larger.  If something like this is solved by a redirect, not necessarily a bad idea, better that it redirect to the foreign relations of the more powerful state.  Mandsford 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing beyond arbitrary data here, Wikipedia is not an almanac. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Page is unsupported by secondary sources that discuss the topic. Page is original research. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:53, 8 February 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.