Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos–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 Laos–Pakistan relations was speedy deleted by User:Malik Shabazz per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement" and no consensus for Burma–Pakistan relations. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laos–Pakistan relations

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

Non-notable bi-lateral relations page. Minimal content. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for deletion for the same reason:

GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laos-Pakistan relations: not notable. The article is vague and unreferenced, and Foreign_relations_of_Laos#Pakistan contains only trivia. I can't find any relevant sources that go beyond the existence of embassies etc. Burma-Pakistan might have off-line sources, since they did border until the independence of Bangladesh in 1971, so I have no opinion on that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laos–Pakistan relations
Keep Burma–Pakistan relations

The first is nonsense but the second has the potential to contain some useful and interesting (and well-sourced) history, given the history. There's more modern interaction too, like this. We also have Burmese people in Pakistan and Pakistanis in Burma suggesting more substantive cultural ties. So the second should stay. But the first can absolutely go. Stalwart111 12:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As may be, but the article makes no pretense of covering such. When you get down to it, it makes the bare statement that they share a border and have established, friendly diplomatic relations. The first fact is not even true any more. GoldenRing (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are not decided entirely by the article's content. The underlying notability of the topic -- whether or not it's represented in the reliable sources presented -- is given much more weight.--~T P W 16:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, and I might agree in this case, if I thought there was any chance of the article improving. Note that both were created by the same editor, along with a swag of other similar bilateral relations articles, all of which are currently up for deletion on a range of notability or copyright violation grounds. At any rate, the place for this sort of thing is in Foreign relations of Burma#Pakistan - from which several portions of this article seem to have been copy-pasted. GoldenRing (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not wrong, but I suppose the argument is that if we delete the silly ones (basically, the rest of them) then other editors will spend time fixing the one article in this "set" that might be worth keeping. I added a few sources - there were significant diplomatic issues as recently as 2012 - so hopefully that helps. I don't think your initial impression (or nomination) was wrong, but as TPW points out, notability is based on available sources and potential content, not what the article looks like now. Stalwart111 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laos–Pakistan relations - not a notable relationship. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Burma–Pakistan relations - notable relationship. The page is a viable stub that should be kept to encourage expansion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO concern. Article content is copied from this news story. -- SMS ^Talk 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Laos–Pakistan relations has been speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement but Burma–Pakistan relations can continue to be discussed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had closed this as a speedy assuming the second article up for deletion was a clear keep given the discussion so far, but I've reverted my close to give it more time (if needed). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:57, 30 April 2014 (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.