Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary–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 per new sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hungary–Pakistan relations

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

Yet another bilateral relations stub randomly created by Plumoyr, apparently based on the presumption that the title is something that should be notable. Relations between these two countries have been in place for only 44 years and have thus far produced nothing of worldly significance compared to any other two. Little content, no context, fails WP:N. BlueSquadron Raven  22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - random, non-notable bilateral pairing; no sources establishing any level of notability; salient facts covered at relevant "diplomatic missions of..." articles. - Biruitorul Talk 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable bilateral relation that fails [WP:N]]. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the usual reasons; a policy is needed here. Most of these should be speedied in my opinion. JJL (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I agree that there's a need for a policy - countries which have never had an embassy in each other and where the article makes no claim of a notable relationship, perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Once again I wouldn't call this a huge relationship but enough to be notable. I use some of these sources to justify my opinion, . - Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: one of those sources confirms the presence of an embassy, already reflected in "Diplomatic missions of..." articles. The other - well, I don't know the significance of that pact, but the burden of proof is on others to show the pact is notable (which, given the geopolitical situation in 1956, is somewhat dubious; it was probably symbolic in nature). - Biruitorul Talk 00:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the sources brought up by MarcusMax.Umbralcorax (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol merge vote.svg|15px]] Merge — to Foreign relations of Pakistan. Ipatrol (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources cited by Marcusmax are: | Hungary, Pakistan Sign Pact (1956) and | "Hungary Embassy in Pakistan" from Visa HQ website (12 Margalla Road in Islamabad).  Two weak for me to say keep.  The problem with the Groubani articles (and Plumoyr apparently used to be Groubani) is the apparent lack of any actual interest in the nations themselves, and the assumption that a separate article must be written to reflect that two countries have diplomatic relations.  That particular fact-- exchange of ambassadors-- is already mentioned in the "Foreign relations of____" articles.  An article specific to the relations of two nations should actually reflect that the media of the two nations consider the relationship (cordial or adversarial) to be newsworthy.  Mandsford (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete changed to Keep After just putting in my two cents to keep Malta–Pakistan relations, I think the sources given here are not good enough. I did find another source, with very brief mention:, and one other very tangential relationship between the countries, in soccer player Adnan Ahmed: .  I note that that fact, however, would be interesting to mention on Adnan Admed's page.  But altogether none of this is enough for a keep!  Cazort (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Without taking a position as to this particular article, I would disagree with the nom's argument that diplomatic "relations between these two countries have been in place for only 44 years". Note that Pakistan has only existed for 61 years, so I don't think that "only" 44 years applies here. Besides, countries can have a significant relationship without having diplomatic relations with each other. See North Korea-South Korea relations, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It helps that North Korea and South Korea share the 38th parallel. I have it on good authority that Pakistan will not share its 38th parallel with Hungary.  Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no reliable sources establish this bilateral relationship rises above the extremely trivial. Fails gng.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable in the usual way. I see no argument why we should treat this article esoterically or apply highly irregular criteria for it's inclusion.  See | Pakistan, Hungary to discuss civilian nuclear cooperation )2006)| Com: Hungary keen to enlarge Trade and Economic relation with Pakistan| Punjab to set up power stations on canals| FM (Pak-Hungary to enhance cooperation|  Pakistan thanks Hungary for promoting Afghanistan's peaceful...| FM Goncz on mission to firm Pakistan economic links]| Hungary offers talks on nuclear cooperation| Pakistan, Hungary agree to boost trade relations - bilateral trade in the $100s of millions, transfer of nuclear technology to Pakistan (now that sounds ho-hum), et cetera. Wily D  14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sources. These seem to clearly establish notability of this relationship.  You have convinced me to change my recommendation above to a keep.  Cazort (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any relevant content there can be covered at Nuclear power in Pakistan and Nuclear power in Hungary - no need to have three related articles endlessly developing in parallel. - Biruitorul Talk 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have many, many related articles. Related articles covering different topics in ways appropriate for each topic is a sensible way to organise information in a reference. Wily D  15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can show the information you contend should be here is discrete enough from that which should be at the other two, that would be a start; otherwise, merging is advocated. - Biruitorul Talk 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per my new standards; sources found by WilyD. Full embassies, reliable sources, relatively large trade, etc. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Keep based on the 2006 agreements on civilan nuclear cooperation. WilyD's sources are sufficient to show notable bilateral relations between Hungary and Pakistan.  Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - With the large number of links, it is baseless to delete this article. Teckgeek (talk) 08:54, 14 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.