Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal–Papua New Guinea 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 DELETE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nepal–Papua New Guinea relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. all there is to this relations is diplomatic relations. Which can be covered in 1 line in their foreign relations articles. No ongoing high level visits, trade, diplomatic incidents. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, I found this quite interesting as the two countries are teaming up in present phase, something to follow. As per linkages, there are issues relating to migration of Nepalese citizens transiting through PNG en route to Australia. --Soman (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of the references says anything about Nepalese citizens entering Australia via PNG, which sounds highly unlikely to be occurring. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A single meeting between public servants in a third country after decades of independence for both countries is not a notable international relationship. WP:NOTNEWS also seems to apply. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As fascinating as these countries' relations could be, their diplomatic links are just too fresh to write an article about anything beyond the mere fact that they exist since April 12, 2013. In a few years, perhaps. Iketsi (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, reluctantly. The inclusion standard suggested by the relevant Wikiproject is that articles should exist about bilateral relations only if they have been engaged in a war, a major trade or diplomatic dispute, if they share a border, have formed an alliance, have significant trade, etc.  This doesn't seem to match the criteria, and if a line has to be drawn on the notability of bilateral relations, it should be applied consistently.  The Blue Canoe  23:43, 22 April 2013 (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.