Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Colombia 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Colombia relations

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

these relations do not have features that typically make a notable bilateral relations article. neither country has embassies, there has been no visits by leaders, no significant trade or migration, and the only agreement seems to be a visa waiver. the sources cite the typical "wanting to co-operate" rather than evidence of co-operation. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept according to Wikipedia's General notability guideline since the references in the article are from reliable, secondary sources and have significant coverage about the topic. Nomian (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd keep the article if there was evidence of actual cooperation and trade. What sources are available? Bearian (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The bilateral trade between the two countries is growing fast and registered 30% annual increase in June, 2013. This is the link = [1]. Nomian (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the level of trade is coming off a very low base of USD10M. In reality, trade grew by a minute $3M. Many large companies trade that in a day. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:N per sources in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment most of the sources confirm very limited interaction rather than actual relations. Is there any coverage of this relationship in colombia? I searched Colombia's biggest newspaper El Tiempo (Colombia) and almost all coverage of Bangladesh is about its natural disasters. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing written like the sources must be from various country to establish notability. The references I have put into the article are from reliable sources and have significant coverage about the topic. Nomian (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral means 2 way. It seems as though Colombians don't really report these relations. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It does not matter the economic etc. size of the relation, or the actual cooperation agreements: only the sources coverage matters. Which is enough for our standards. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so 4 sources including 3 from the same newspaper is our minimum standard? LibStar (talk) 04:29, 20 January 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.