Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal–Poland 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal–Poland relations

Nepal–Poland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

These relations lack items that contribute to notability like significant trade, migration, state visits and embassies. The only thing of note is Polish assistance during the 2015 earthquake, which could be covered in April_2015_Nepal_earthquake#Rescue_and_relief. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Nepal, and Poland. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed. Poland occasional aid to Nepal (maybe we can find few more examples) is not enough to warrant keeping this article. Ping me if better sources are found (I doubt it). The information about that particular incident is already present in April 2015 Nepal earthquake so there's no need for merge or redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not relevant article. killer bee  05:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Another example of the trend to build a standalone article for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The sources presented are either WP:PRIMARY (Nepalese or Polish government press releases or statements) or casual mentions that do nothing to denote notability (ref 1, for instance). I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. There is no info particularly worth merging. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2023 (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.