Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–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   no consensus. There is broad and reasonable disagreement here as to the notability of the topic, which is unlikely to be surpassed by extending the debate. Skomorokh  01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ireland–Pakistan relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Ireland (despite being the richer nation) does not have an embassy in Pakistan. most of the third party coverage centres on sports results on multilateral relations looking at the first 70 of these. yes there has been coverage like this but the article states "made major contacts" and "shown interest" rather than real investment. sure there may be some but you kind of expect IT companies in Western Europe to do some contracting in the subcontinent. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Normally, I would say to merge the information to "Foreign relations of ______" (Pakistan, Ireland), but none of the items here even qualifies as relations.  Though I appreciate the effort taken to make something of another one of Groubani's excreta, it pretty well shows that there aren't any Ireland-Pakistan relations.  If anyone wants some straws to grasp at, maybe you can make the argument that Pakistan was once part of India which was a colony of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and...." (wait for it)... "IRELAND"!!!!!  It's better now than it was four days ago.  Not yet ready to say keep, but I'll withdraw my delete Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone cared to take the effort they could work up a plausible essay on the subject. Back in the days of the British Raj a lot of the troops on the Northwest Frontier were Irish. The brothers Henry and John Lawrence were Irish in origin. Presumably there have been economic and cultural exchanges since then, as well as the normal diplomatic meetings. The Irish sport of hurling has similarities to field hockey, although that connection may be a stretch. And of course there is the famous cricket match. But unless more content is added, it is hard to see that notability is established. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I was able to find a significant number of independent 3rd party sources (which I've now added to the article) regarding relations, outside of cricket and football, that demonstrate notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a rather choppy collection of factoids now. I should criticize, given some of the ones I have started. Enough to establish notability. I would be inclined to add more on the Irish involvement in what is now Pakistan during the Raj. I don't think the title restricts the article to modern, formal relations between the two governments. It should cover all aspects of the relations between the people of the two countries. The note on textiles in interesting, because I think at one time the trade was in the other direction - cheap Irish exports harming the local industry. Could be wrong, but it is worth checking. A reasonable basic article on a complex subject with a lot of room for expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep meets and exceeds the usual inclusion standards. (i.e. WP:N). Not expanded to it's full potential, sure, but that's hardly here or there.  No reason for exceptional treatment. Wily D  17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See the talk page for more cites.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most of what I see is mentions of a meeting or someone saying "that's a good idea". What I don't see is anything notable about their relationship. I can't count trade since the activities of private companies in Ireland don't necessarily represent the relationships of their government. In short, normal govt. interactions, nothing notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The relations between nations' governments are not necessarily representative of the relations between nations' peoples. For the purpose of these debates, I suggest we use the broader definition.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. While there appears to be more of a relationship between Ireland and Pakistan than between other pairs that have been AfDed recently, I'm still not seeing evidence that anyone cares enough to write about the relationship itself, other than a few wikipedians. Without a source or two that actually addresses the subject head on and in some detail, we're left cobbling an article together from the free hundred-word previews of tangentially related newspaper articles provided by online news archives like accessmylibrary, newslibrary, and highbeam. This is not a good way to write a college term paper, never mind an encyclopedia article. And the rescue effort for this article seems particularly sloppy: In going thru the cited sources I identified and fixed two copyright violations and saw several other near verbatims that really toed the line. There was info included on Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. And mentioning Ireland's cricket victory over Pakistan on St Patrick's Day or that both countries contribute to UN peacekeeping operations seems particularly like grasping at straws. But this is what happens when there are no substantive sources on topic to guide the writing of an encyclopedia article, a work that is supposed to be a tertiary source. Yilloslime T C  06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring the information you removed. The Irish peace process is relevant to Ireland and the comparison was direct. Your copyvio corrections are appreciated.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Above and beyond the inherent notability of these bilateral relations articles, the notability of this article under discussion here is established by the ample reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * seems like an almost identical standard text argument was used here and here. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well since you nominated all of them for deletion, maybe we should just disregard your nominations too. No. Obviously not. The argument that these articles are inherently encyclopedic is a valid point that's been raised before and deserves to be considered here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * and I've used different text and different gnews searches for each. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I intentionally cut and pasted the same argument to ave myself some wasted time retyping minor variations of the same statement. What's wrong with that? Alansohn (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * it gives the appearance that you have not read the AfD or article or made up your mind beforehand. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Far from the truth. I've seen your previous nominations and I review every article and its sources before passing judgment. That the same words work and cutting and pasting saves time is a reflection of my attempts to avoid wasting effort. If subtle variations in wording somehow make a vote more worthy that's your issue, not mine. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There does seem to be some very slight co-operation here They do for example have a Joint Business Council and Ireland has taken some wider actions then just saying hello. But there does seem to be a lack of information. It reads like a list of questions on a quiz show.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A few sources here. I do not believe in inherent notability for bilateral relations, and reject any such arguments, however. Gigs (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2010 (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.