Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Pakistan relations

:{{la|Croatia–Pakistan relations}} ([{{fullurl:Croatia–Pakistan relations|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Pakistan relations}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Two far-flung countries with no real ties; bilateral relations are not inherently notable, so this should go. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable in the usual way. See [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1197FFF2CB800FB0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM] + [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F97DD795C693835&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM] + [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28234481_ITM] + [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11DD3A38143CE880&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM] + [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28239681_ITM] + [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28300151_ITM] + [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31362547_ITM] and so on. It would be nice if you realised that "not inherently notable" is not a synonym for "not actually notable". While bilateral relations are not inherently notable, many meet and exceed the standards of WP:N, such as this one, and are thus notable, despite their notability not being inherent. WilyD 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Discussions, memoranda, declarations - so? Any source actually discussing "Croatia-Pakistan relations"? You can't just take those disparate bits of news and proclaim they form evidence of notability; that breaches WP:SYNTH. We need the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. We can't be prioritizing trivia just because of a perceived "need" to "fill in" these nonsense articles with "details" we'd never cover in other contexts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• They're in depth sources as is the regular practice of WP:N, and SYNTH is irrelevent, as it doesn't even vaguely apply here. Misusing words like trivia, and ignoring policies and practices, doesn't make your flawed argument sound. Sorry, WilyD 17:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Sure it does: you're taking a bunch of news reports and claiming they relate to "Croatia–Pakistan relations", without one single source actually discussing the purported subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. Foreign relations of the 203 sovereign countries are best discussed in the article about the country, or a standalone article if a major country, rather than in 20,000 such binary stubs. A link to the country's foreign ministry website will provide more up-to-date info than a robostub created and neglected. Edison (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. And what if bilateral relations are inherently notable? Then this shouldn't go. GregorB (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Montenegro relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Chile relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaica–Serbia relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Americas relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Nauru relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Singapore relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Luxembourg relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy See–Yemen relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria–Croatia relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunei-Greece relations. Consensus is that sources are needed to write a coherent article on the subject, and that the mere existence of relations is insufficient to demonstrate notability.

::an da good many kept. I think we'll be revisiting some of those above. DGG (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations has some well thought out advice (see Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations) for when bilateral relations between two nations are notable. This article does not even assert to meet any of them. This sort of material should just be covered in the articles of each nation if it is even notable enough to do so.Locke9k (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial non-notable relationship. Gigs (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. More than enough prior deletions of similar articles have shown that these types of articles are not inherently notable, and must still be shown to be so. WilyD once again has only provided coverage of individual incidents, not any coverage of the topic of the article itself. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources discuss this relationship in any depth beyond the trivial. That the two states care so little about this relationship that they don't maintain embassies in each other's capital is a good sign that we should follow their lead.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

{{user:ikip/99|Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations}}

• Strong Keep per WilyD. Notable. Ikip (talk) 02:02, 5 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.