Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan–Romania 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. -- User:Docu 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan–Romania relations

as per Romanian speaking User:Biruitorul: Under Communism, Romania was far closer to India (which followed a socialist economic model until 1991), and that hasn't really changed in the last 20 years. According to this (rough translation here), the "relationship" is what you'd expect - a few visits (which I'm sure some will seize upon to "prove" they're best friends), a few agreements (including the obligatory double taxation avoidance one), two-way trade of $55 million, Pakistan's economy being $504 billion in size and Romania's, $264 billion. Other than that and a few news briefs like these, there really isn't much there. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure my snarky jab on visits should be here, but as per above. Fails WP:N (the one source quoted is from the Romanian government, and thus not independent). Very minor relations, and the one salient fact - embassies - already noted at Diplomatic missions of Pakistan & Romania. Whatever statements Romania has made about violence in Pakistan are not unusual and in line with EU policy. Not much more to see here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I commend the nominator on doing a google search in advance of the nomination; the fact of $55 million in trade was not mentioned in this Groubani article, and LibStar noted it in the sources referred to in the nomination. I agree that the trade is not very much, but one of the factors I look at is whether the two nations appear to be working toward building a relationship, and I see ample evidence of that from the "pakistan+and+romania"&cf=all| Google news search to say that there's enough to build an article. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a relationship does exist, but (as such) it's not been the subject of significant coverage, and even the coverage you've found is simply the usual news we'd never pick up on outside this series of nonsense articles - the declarations about "cordial" and "good" relations, the plans to set up joint ventures worth $4 million (4 milllllllllion dollars), the "joint economic missions"... None of this amounts to very much, or is anything out of the ordinary. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no references, little evidence of anything even in Romanian. Fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent almanacical entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [1] , [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] LibStar (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep rationale, even if embossed with the term "almanacical". Furthermore, the "source" you've added breaches WP:GNG - it's not independent of the subject, being from the Romanian government. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing what is required for an almanac entry and what is required for, say, a biography in Wikipedia. An almanac entry, like a township, just has to exist. All towns started as piped data from the census. I am not sure how you twisted a Wikipedia pillar into WP:ILIKEIT. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

towns are inherently notable but bilateral relations are not, why is that at least 70 of these bilateral relations articles have been deleted in recent weeks? your comments do not address how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is because you have been deleting about 5 a day under the radar. I have no doubt many more townships were deleted before a consensus was developed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

check my edit history, I have not been nominating for deleting at 5 a day. secondly, only admins can delete articles. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mandsford has demonstrated that there are plenty of sources available to help out with this article.--Marcusmax(speak) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; these are two major players in the region. Parliamentary cooperation is being developed here, a book here, expansion of trade here, co-operation in anti narcotics here, grain exports here and so on. Smile a While (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article as it exists provides a claim of notability, and the material already in the article should be expanded with the additional content identified here by several editors. Alansohn (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to repeat that same comment over and over? Whatever relevance it might have had, when it was first encountered, was lost after we read it the third time. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, with respect, I believe this is hinting at a desperate attempt to stop these AfDs. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I respect Ikip and his efforts in this area. However, these AfDs, at least for the minute, aren't going anywhere and we would all do better to make constructive arguments in the AfDs. HJMitchell You rang? 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is evidence that the relations are notable as per the sources given above. HJMitchell You rang? 17:34, 13 May 2009 (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.