Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigeria–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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nigeria–Pakistan relations

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

current article sounds like a press release as per WP:NOT. vast majority of media coverage of 2 countries is with other countries is there anything to prove notable relations like trade? LibStar (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Muslim population and religious issues may connect them, but little else.  Collect (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a press release is not a substitute for independent coverage, which is not forthcoming; fails WP:N. - Biruitorul Talk 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Runs againstnot a directory. Also fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The entire article is based around one news item from earlier this year. This fails WP:N because we are not a news source and there is no ongoing coverage that asserts the importance of the topic as a whole. Wholly non-notable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A few seconds with Google uncovers this 10-page article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting find, if only most bilateral relations had info like this! LibStar (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . I looked at this topic a few days ago and found nothing, my original purpose of coming here was to state a delete opinion. However I looked one more time and discovered a whole host of article I missed the first time. I see how the nom or anyone could have missed all these as they were buried in the google news search. So I will have to bode keep. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as for many of  these articles, as there are sources to be found from which they  can be improved, or else merged. DGG (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; sufficient sources are available to establish notability. Smile a While (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Finally! An opportunity for me to display my inclusionist tendencies! The article could easily be improved per the efforts of Marcusmax, who has gone above and beyond due diligence. 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. I've just completed a major expansion of the article. It's a far cry from the stub that was nominated. IT contains evidence of presidential meetings, diplomatic missions, trade delegations and military relations- all referenced to at least one WP:RS. No fewer than 18 separate references to reliable, third party sources. There is no disputing that there is a relationship and that it is notable. Thanks are due to Marcusmax by the way- most of the references I used came from the links he posted above! HJMitchell    You rang?  19:32, 12 May 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.