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 delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

non resident embassies, these bilateral articles are about relations between the nation states, so the historical context before either of these nations actually existed should be covered in Mughal Empire and Mongol Empire. the section of trade is really becoming a WP:NOT#NEWS section and actually a copy and paste from 1 article which violates WP:COPYVIO. there is a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, their relations seem often in a multilateral regional context [1] . there's this article but it's the usual "we would like to cooperate". also the Pakistan foreign ministry says nothing of specific bilateral relations [2]. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The section of the article on trade makes the lack of relations between this random pairing excruciatingly bare. References do not exist to support notability of this topic. Pre-modern relations are best dealt with elsewhere as the nominator points out, since even the idea of the modern nation-state did not exist in the regions where Mongolia and Pakistan are now located during the time periods discussed. Drawn Some (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. Edison (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real relations worth talking about. A trade minister visiting means nothing and 100 pakistanis living there are insignificant even in relation to the low population of Mongolia. --Latebird (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources, especially those provided, demonstrate the lack of notability of these relations. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The creator of this article, User:Ronaldochamp has not been notified by User:LibStar of this Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since no reliable sources discuss this topic, that is this bilateral relationship, in any depth at atll. There appears to be a copyvio problem as well, but no one seems to care about that anymore.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. The history section (years 1221 and 1526) is properly covered in the linked articles. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very significant historical interaction--not just those two events but throughout the 6 centuries, ending as recently as the 19th century. That we do not have more information of the ethnic and cultural c interactions is a limitation we should try to overcome. The history is of course discussed in fuller detail elsewhere, but it's appropriate content here and would justify an article all by itself--there were a great many more people giving influence in both directions than those indicated. I'm not an expert, but I do know about it, & regret I havent time to do it, but the article has potential for expansion. DGG (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not even the name "Pakistan" existed until the 1930s. To pretend that Mughal-Mongol Empire interactions had anything to do with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and modern-day Mongolia is misguided at best, abusive at worst. Anything else in here is trivial, and merits deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article mostly talks about interactions long before either nation existed in its modern form. A tiny bit about trade hardly makes the relations as a topic of the whole notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:50, 7 June 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.