Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – 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 no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand – Pakistan relations

New Zealand – Pakistan relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

noting that NZ does not have a full embassy in Pakistan. the vast majority of coverage is about their sporting relations in cricket and hockey. there is a little bit of coverage like this and another ministers saying we want to cooperate but not enough for an article in my opinion. It is important to note how the NZ govt describes this relationship "New Zealand's relations with Pakistan have historically been friendly but slight". LibStar (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Well written, verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Article is fine. And the article you link to, confirms they have a relationship , even if they consider it slight. Honestly now. Are you one of those who keeps saying to look for sources that say there is a relationship? The article is well written, and has information those interested in the subject would find useful. Dream Focus 17:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dream focus you say "And the article you link to, confirms they have a relationship". It may have a relationship but it needs notable relations to be a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• • "The article is well written, and has information those interested in the subject would find useful" - Im sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What evidence do you have that Wikipedia considers the BBC, Associated Press, and New Zealand Herald unreliable. I would like to read that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I was just replying to Dream Focus's comment to tell him/her that the quoted comment is not how Wikipedia works. I do not say that the sources you state are not reliable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete How the heck is this well written? The sources are all primary or flaky, the article is six sentences long, and there's a rapidly building precedent against X-Y relations articles. I swear, Richard Arthur Norton would argue "keep" on an article on my DVD collection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Government websites or government run news agencies are not primary sources, that is an error on your part. The primary source for a signed economic agreement would be the text of the agreement, not a government website reporting the signing. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand only has three million people in it. Their economy is mostly based on foreign trade. They sent foreign aid to Pakistan to assist after natural disasters. They have also helped them in clearing landmines. New Zealand's official government website says, "New Zealand has also worked with Pakistan as a ‘frontline state’ in the war against terrorism." I don't know exactly what that means, I discussing it on the article's talk page, before adding it into the article. There does seem to be a notable relationship between the two countries though. Dream Focus 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is almost entirely information found elsewhere in the wiki. The two have no special relationship. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the usual attempt to make something out of nothing. Besides the fact that no one has written on "New Zealand – Pakistan relations" as such (see WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH for that), we have some pretty risible content here. State visits we'd never consider mentioning in, say, Musharraf's biography, or the fact that NZ sends wool to Pakistan (er, that is a primary export of theirs - should we be surprised?). Finally, all three sources fail WP:GNG - they are not "independent of the subject". Thus, notability is far from being established. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that the Biruitorul Biography Rule. Only information in biographies is notable for Wikipedia? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's so frustrating when someone can't just read what I wrote! All I said was that trivial details such as state visits quickly forgotten - something we'd never, for example, bother to mention in Musharraf's biography (or, if you want, in an article on the foreign relations of Pakistan) - ought not to be given any attention in this venue either. Let's stop prioritizing trivia already. (And to pre-empt your comment about trivia being a "personal opinion": so is "not trivia". The point being that we have to rely on WP:N - have multiple, reliable, independent sources covered the topic of "New Zealand – Pakistan relations"? No. Thus, delete.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I assure you it is equally frustrating to see the "Biruitorul Biography Rule" used over and over instead of quoting Wikipedia policy. I see "multiple, reliable, independent sources" in the BBC, Associated Press, and New Zealand Herald.

I've told you there is no such "rule", and I have been acting pursuant to policy. (Is every story here worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Of course not: we need evidence they fall under some topic that has itself been the attention of reliable secondary independent sources, which "New Zealand – Pakistan relations" has not.) Bait me one more time by bringing this up, and administrators will be informed of the matter. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Then don't keep invoking the Biruitorul Biography Rule at each AFD, stick to proven Wikipedia policy such as notability and reliability. The litmus test isn't inclusion in a world leader's biography. Wikipedia only requires that more than one reliable media report on a topic. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. How someone considered it well written escapes me. For instance --"Both countries fought in the world wars, when pre-partitian Pakistan was part of India." Pakistan didn't exist until two years after the last world war. And "partitian" for crying out loud. If this was improved it would necessarily end up stub size so someone would still AfD it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are using the Strawman fallacy. It is a fun technique where you find the weakest thing in the article and use it as a rationale to delete all the rest. The argument is a fallacy, and we shouldn't be using it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How unethical. I commented on the standard of writing, and then commented on the article by saying "If this was improved it would necessarily end up stub size so someone would still AfD it." Also, would you say it is a strawman to point out (again) that Pakistan did not exist until 1947 and could not have "fought in the world wars" as claimed in the article? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes! That is the definition of the strawman fallacy. There are 10 fact, and you ignore 9 facts and concentrate on the weakest one, and then say the whole article has to be deleted because that one fact is weak or wrong. You also may notice that articles on US relations have info before 1776. Articles on Iran relations go back to Alexander the Great. The area and people existed, even if the modern country did not yet exist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are still being unethical. It is patently rubbish for you to say I want the article deleted because one "fact" is weak or wrong. I gave one example. I didn't say that was the only thing wrong with the article. I have twice stated "If this was improved it would necessarily end up stub size so someone would still AfD it. " Regarding your "10 facts," you ignore "trivia is trivia" comments by other opposers. When trivia is removed we end up with a stub and someone will AfD it. I am pleased to see someone has removed one of the "facts", the bit claiming Pakistan fought in two world wars. Couldn't have, of course. The Indian army/ies yes. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Trivia" is a subjective term, stick to the Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

State visits happen literally every week of every year; strange we don't feel compelled to mention them outside "rescue" efforts on this series of nonsense articles, isn't it? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And at 50 per year, lets assume they take two weeks off for personal holidays, and 20K permutations of countries it would take 400 years of state visits to complete a cycle. Using that math, state visits aren't very common. In the end it is what is reported by reliable media, not some arbitrary number of them occurring, or if they are mentioned in world leaders biographies. Not every world leader has an published 300 page biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Above and beyond any presumption of inherent notability for such articles, the sources present in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Any issues with quality of writing can be address through a process called "editing". Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes they can, but you end up with a stub at best and the article still gets dumped. Waste of time, but feel free. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. The sources are not independent and reliable. Nothing encyclopedic presented. Better to have 208 article about "Foreign relations of..." than 20,000 bilateral article robostubs. Edison (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say by anyone's standard the BBC, Associated Press, and New Zealand Herald are independent and reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They're independent, but that doesn't mean every scrap of information they put out is worth including in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS and all that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS has no such restriction. It prohibits an article on the meeting of two ministers, or an article on a treaty if it is only mentioned once in the media. It has no bearing on using that information in a larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per Alansohn. The subject matter of bilateral relations between nation states is notable. The sourced info on the mine clearing program and trade clearly establish present day relations. Not so sure about WWII alliances but it could go in the background section. This article needs work, not deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No one is saying New Zealand officials can't find Pakistan on a map, or that sheep farmers don't send wool there. What we are saying is that the subject "New Zealand – Pakistan relations" has not been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources, and that try as one might, perform as many Google searches to dredge up bits of trivia as one might, one still isn't going to establish the notability of the purported topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling it trivia is just a way to denigrate what you don't like. The news sources are reliable according to Google and Wikipedia, and that is all that matters by Wikipedia rules to be notable and verifiable. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Trivia is trivia: the information in the article bears no relation to other information, is chaotically structured, is impossible to link to, and is meaningless, regardless of how one may spin it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Trivia" and "meaningless" are subjective terms, stick to the Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless" - Ecclesiastes 1:2. Wikipedia is meaningless. Our lives are meaningless. Existence is meaningless. Your arguments are meaningless. Maybe you should avoid these kind of arguments in the future for the good of this project ("which I choose to believe is not meaningless").--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Either Delete or else Merge to [Foreign relations of New Zealand]. Article is comprised of trivia and the sort of minutiae of an international relationship that, however well sourced and comprehensively annotated, simply isn't notable.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why only merge to New Zealand?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because that's the only article of the two I'm likely to have anything to do with. If anyone keeping an eye on the Pakistan article want the information they're welcome to it. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I bring it up in part because the Foreign relations of Pakistan is already quite long. Merging these articles would almost necessarily result in the loss of sourced information.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources detail these bilateral relations in any depth. Multilateral, sure, but New Zealand and Pakistan? No. Hipocrite (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I was hoping this was one I could !vote keep on, but such is not the case. Trivia where both countries' names are found is still trivia. Collect (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per above bilateral relations between nation states is notable as well as details of the mine clearing program. Also there it has recently been announced that the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan is promoting its links with educational institutions in New Zealand. Pahari Sahib 12:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per additions by Norton and by Pahari. In this case, there's sufficient evidence of a growing relationship between the two nations. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Is there a guideline on the notability of bilateral relationships? If not, it seems like a useful thing to have. I'm sure this isn't the only debate along these lines (although possibly it is the most rancorous). --Helenalex (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, the guideline is good ol' WP:N, based on whether one can find significant coverage in independent sources. A couple of months ago, there were some other people who wanted to work out some type of policy. There was a lot of self-important talk about how the rest of us should hold off until their committee came to a consensus, and at least one closing administrator fell for that "wait for the outcome of our policy discussion" nonsense. They had one guy who wanted to rename all the articles for no apparent reason other than to rename the articles. Those of us who debate these regularly knew that there would be no consensus, and that it's up to the participants to judge each of these on their own merits, with a healthy reliance upon common sense. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete At first glance, this article seems to have content. However, closer reading shows that it is actually a list of 15 facts covering issues such as two state visits and competition in cricket. Much of the material comes from a reference where the NZ government has helpfully listed all contacts with Pakistan. That reference starts with "New Zealand's relations with Pakistan have historically been friendly but slight." We have no analysis (or even brief mention) in a source discussing the notability of the relations. The relations are not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:IINFO. Material demonstrates low-level and highly sporadic contacts that falls well short of "relations". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Two fairly important countries. they have trade relations as well as diplomatic. There are a few pairings of these that are not appropriate for an article, but the material already present for this one is sufficient, as I think will be the case for all countries of this size. That the same information would have to me merged to two separate articles is one reason against merge as a solution. an even more significant one is that the article on foreign relations of each, would have over a hundred fairly long sections and be totally unmanageable. Looking at these one at a time in this fashio tends to obscure things like that. DGG (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete An article crammed with trivia by means of synthesis, and preoccupied with proving its own notability by connecting random facts, but utterly non-encyclopedic. Dahn (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like everyone was emailed their talking points to bring up in the AFD. You guys are well organized, but "trivia" is a subjective term, stick to the Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. They are the only things that matter here.

• Delete an article that hinges entirely on the sort of trivia that one would not imagine mentioning in the articles for countries that have, well, actually notable relationships, like the just written East Timor-Indonesia relations or the long-standing Russia-Ukraine relations for instance. Strained synthesis efforts to create topics don't make them encyclopedically so. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are using the argument of "relative importance" which isn't a concern of Wikipedia. While it is true if you or I were to rank all the world's bilateral relations, this would be in the bottom third, and Russia-Ukraine relations would be in the top third, Wikipedia doesn't care. It wasn't written for you and me personally, it only cares about notability and verifiability, both are met here.

One more time: It looks like everyone was emailed their talking points to bring up the word "trivia" in the AFD. You guys are well organized, but "trivia" is a subjective term, stick to the Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. They are the only things that matter here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your argument about WP:SYNTH. Are you trying to say that it is synthesis to say that references to treaties, official visits, trade volumes, or military cooperation or competition between countries relate to the relations of those countries? I would say that that's just common-sense under the definition of foreign relations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are presuming notability is inherent in, for instance, the existence of a double taxation treaty. However, no relieable independent source considers these things notable. You are essentially putting x-y together, and drawing your own conclusion.

An independent source is required for notability not verifiability. A government website is verifiable. All Wikipedia almanac entries and gazetteer entries are derived from US Government data dumps. We use census data for townships, and official government biographies for all federal judges and state representatives. Click on the template for CongressBio and see how many biographies are sourced with only a government biography. You can do the same for the template for federal judges. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder: The first line of Wikipedia:Five pillars reads as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." You may denigrate an almanac as a book of trivia, but Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of ... almanacs". Cheers. Pillars trump guidelines everytime. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Authors have dug up a bunch of random facts to throw together, but I see no sources proving that the relations between these two countries are a notable area of inquiry in political studies or anything. Appears to be a random cross-categorization. This is looking like it'll be closed as no consensus, but I just wanted to add my two cents. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:40, 6 June 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.