Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Italy relations

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 February 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 all. The strongest policy backed arguments have been made by the deletion side in this debate. Whether these countries have relations or not is not what is in question, instead it is whether those relations are proven to be notable. Those asking for the articles to be preserved have failed to provide evidence of notability, through reliable sources, where these diplomatic "relations" have actually been covered. Original research done via synthesis of events (whether sourced or not) is not permissible. Therefore, as that is all that has been presented by those asking for these articles' retention, the consensus (while not shown in numbers, as this is not a vote) is for these articles to be deleted - in accordance with policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Italy relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply a duplication of information already available at Foreign relations of Bangladesh, created as part of a one-person crusade to populate the template {{Foreign relations of Bangladesh}}. Nominating a couple of others on the same basis:

Bangladesh–France relations
Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations
Bangladesh–Ivory Coast relations
Bangladesh–Jordan relations (essentially about a single story that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT)

St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all all of these articles should be kept according to the general notability guidelines. There are already quite a few references in Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations, Bangladesh–Ivory Coast relations and Bangladesh–Jordan relations. Though Bangladesh–Italy relations and Bangladesh–France relations are unreferenced now but they are notable topics because Bangladesh has bilateral trade relations worth more than $1 billion with each of the two countries(Italy, France). There are also significant Bangladeshi diaspora populations in Italy and France. I will expand them now. And I don't know why Stalwart111 has been blanking these articles before putting them in AFD, here are the diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Nomian (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that any of these "meet GNG" is nonsense. None of them do. The "coverage" in each case is about a single visit (or two) or a single historical event (that wouldn't pass WP:EVENT) dressed up as a "bilateral relations" article when such relations simply don't exist. I didn't "blank" anything - I removed those sections that were completely unreferenced. Commercial trade is not the same thing as diplomatic relations. It should be noted that Nomian created all of these diplomati-spam articles but didn't bother to meet his WP:BURDEN to properly source any of them. He's now unilaterally and blindly undoing edits that removed unsourced content and repaired broken English. The articles are original thought, inventions and synthesis and Wikipedia remains the only place you can read about these supposed "relations". St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd encourage participants to actually read the sources put forward by Nomian in each of these articles, rather than simply taking them on face-value. I'm all for WP:AGF but as this AFD and the blind reverts demonstrate, many of the "sources" used to create these articles are actually primary sources, press releases and duplicates thereof. They do nothing to substantiate the notability of these events, let alone the "relations" articles into which they have been sythesised. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin and other voters User:Stalwart111 has been repeatedly removing the sources and blanking the articles Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations, Bangladesh–Ivory Coast relations and Bangladesh–Jordan relations just because the sources became dead links but they should know that according to WP:Link rot sources cannot be removed even if they are dead. The links were properly running when I added them in those articles and a google search for those news titles can prove that those sources exist. I feel Stalwart111 is competent enough to understand all the policies of Wikipedia and I'm requesting them to stop removing the sources and blanking these article since this is not conducive to maintain a pleasant editing environment. Nomian (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As on your talk page and elsewhere, WP:Link rot is a how-to guide and not a "policy", no matter how many times you suggest it is. It doesn't give you the right to edit-war to add unsourced content, it doesn't give you the right to summarily undo a series of edits, most of which had nothing to do with sources (but were aimed at fixing grammatical errors and broken English) and it doesn't absolve you of the obligation you have to verify claims you make with reliable sources. You have made un-sourced claims and those claims have been challenged. Rather than blindly edit-warring, how about you follow WP:BRD and take your sources (good, bad and non-existent) to article talk pages. If there is consensus that you should be allowed to add that information without sources, I'll happily accept it. And I haven't "blanked" anything, in fact in several cases I actually added content (which you also blindly reverted). St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing unsourced, you have removed the sources and now saying I added unsourced content, this is clear violation of WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith. If you were concerned about the grammar or other errors then you can fix it but why you are removing the sources and blanking the articles? This is really disruptive. Nomian (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blank any of the articles, I added information and I did fix the grammar and other errors - you reverted those edits when you blindly (without looking at them) cut-paste reverted my edits. I've walked you through the process of having those sources considered (where they actually exist) but you don't seem to be listening. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are already given in my comment and they clearly show you have removed the sources and blanked these articles. Nomian (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed non-existent sources and the claims they purported to verify. I didn't "blank these articles" and you clearly don't understand that term if you believe I did. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not non-existent, just because they are dead links now you cannot remove them. Nomian (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete only *Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations and Bangladesh–Jordan relations , these 2 are based on factoids and the usual want to cooperate type of statement but no significant coverage of actual relations. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per GNG. I disagree with the nominator's claim of single purpose account - SAMI ^talk 20:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way to they meet GNG? And with regard to the SPA nature of the article creator, the evidence speaks for itself. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the evidence of the SPA nature. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easily, check Nomian (talk · contribs) edit history, I would say 99.9% of his edits are about Bangladesh-x relations. no interest in expanding other Bangladesh articles or other bilateral articles which are more notable. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of Bangladesh is my area of interest so I create articles related to this topic but I have also edited many other articles which are not related to this topic. Nomian (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as I said 99.99% of your edits are on bilateral you have little interest in other topics. LibStar (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - each of them passes WP:GNG, fair bit of sources with indepth coverage. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not coverage of any sort of "relations". Its coverage of events (that wouldn't meet WP:EVENT) stitched together to create a bizarre patchwork quilt you can only ready about here on Wikipedia. This is entirely an invention of the editor and we don't publish original thought. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I have to agree. I do see some SPA nature there. I mean how many pages of Bangladesh interactions do we REALLY need? We don't even have every article on interactions between a country and the United States and there is a hell lot of articles on that. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the deletion rationale here is bizarre, stating "one-person crusade to populate" as if it was a bad thing to create articles in Wikipedia. The creator of these articles is doing a valuable effort to expand Wikipedia. Bangladesh is one of the most popolous countries in the world, and does carry weight internationally. Countries like France and Italy have size-able Bangladeshi populations. France, as member of the Security Council, played a major role at the time of the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. A single project of the France Development Agency in Bangladesh had a budget of 45 million USD (http://www.afd.fr/home/pays/asie/geo-asie/afd-bangladesh/activite-bangladesh). Etc, etc. No more blanket nominations, please. --Soman (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've only presented an argument to keep France and Italy. " Bangladesh is one of the most popolous countries in the world, and does carry weight internationally" is so vague and does not give a free pass to any bilateral with Bangladesh m LibStar (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I argue for a procedural keep. The problem here is that virtually all Bangladesh bilateral relations articles get clumped together in mass AfDs, a behaviour that is clearly disruptive and unconstructive. The nominator clearly has not cared anything about WP:BEFORE. --Soman (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to the articles in question and my analysis of the available sources contradict that baseless accusation. Your "argument" is without merit. I'm one of three different editors who have nominated Bangladesh-X relations both individually and as part of grouped nominations (which are perfectly valid). They were mass-created; why should they not be mass-nominated when they all suffer the same problems with regard to WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N? St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to look at articles like this one to realise what can be done with a genuinely notable relationship; when the purpose isn't to mass-create random [X-Anything relations] articles to fill a template. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (re Bangladesh-Jordan); 30,000 Bangladeshis work in Jordan, http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/old/more.php?news_id=128096&date=2012-04-28 , http://jordantimes.com/Jordan,+Bangladesh+agree+on+domestic+help+recruitment+-47440 --Soman (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Bangladesh has had an increased clout worldwide due to its increasing visibility, diaspora and its political stability in the face of instability in its surroundings. There are multiple established magazines that quote Bangladeshi affairs with other nations therefore it would easily pass GNG. 80.44.185.109 (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — 80.44.185.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

an incredibly generic vote from a 1 edit editor. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Azerbaijan and Bangladesh are political allies. Jordan is home to 30,000 Bangladeshis. Ivory Coast is an important African country, where Bangladesh is the largest peacekeeper; and the former African bread basket looks to Bangladesh for its agricultural development. France and Italy have billions of dollars in investment and trade relations and a history of high level exchanges. All notable relationships in the sphere of the world's eighth most populous state.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being "world's eighth most populous state" does not give a free pass for notability of Bangladesh-X. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close as Keep a multi-nom like this will never get consensus for deletion of specific articles, since most agree that plenty of these articles are fine. --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of group nominations are closed as delete so that's nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me: "Since most agree that plenty of these articles are fine"... the batch-nom should be closed as keep, because it will be impossible to extract proper attention/consensus on whichever individual articles might be deleted. I'm not saying that batch noms are always bad, or should always be kept. --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. Happy to nominate them individually; as explained, they were mass-created so mass-nomination seemed a sensible way of working through the long list created by the editor in question, many (if not most) of which have since been or are in the process of being deleted. The editor in question has been disingenuously "sourcing" the articles after the fact, claiming disruption when broken English is repaired and unsourced promotion is deleted. He's done a great job of disrupting the process and derailing this nomination (and others) in an effort to keep his inventions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitless delete all as non-notable intersections of countries. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to @Stifle:, do you consider 1 billion+ USD annual trade as "non-notable intersection of countries"? (see Italy, France, as mentioned by Nomian above) For you, what would be the minimum level of commercial and diplomatic links to qualify as notable? --Soman (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Each passes WP:GNG and sources easily found, as presented by others in this very discussion. The nom should read WP:BEFORE. And read it again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've made this !vote only 1 minute after a similar style vote in another AfD [5], I wonder if you actually read all the articles up for nomination. This would impossible in one minute. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they've all be relisted at the same time. WP:AGF. Read it. And read it again. It's as if you don't actually have a clue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you spent less than 10 seconds reading each one? Isn't hypocrisy fun? I've explained my analysis of sources above (several times) and have made edits to each article to address issues that might be addressed via editing. Your accusation is nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tha immigration of people of Bangladesh in Italy is an important fact so also the relations between the two goverments are important.User:Lucifero4

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguments "at weight", such as "Bangladesh - X trade for more that Y billions of dollars per year" or "there are Z millions emigrants from X to Bangladesh" are in my view pointless to demonstrate notability. Such facts are likely indicators of strong bilateral relations, but no proof of notability of such relations. Additionally, if the information is duplicated with Foreign relations of Bangladesh as it seems to be the case, I do not see the need for standalone articles. Tigraan (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Semantics. By any reasonable standards "likely indicators of strong bilateral relations" would be the very essence of notability at wikipedia. Or do you prefer google hit counts to establish notability instead? --Soman (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.