Deletion of Argentina–Pakistan relations

Comment: exceeds the standard of , and no argument has shown that this is an unusual case that merits highly irregular treatment.  Sources already presented exceed the standards of  by a large margin. On my own, I looked over http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Business/14-Apr-2009/Argentina-to-collaborate-in-Pak-livestock-sector + http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=74965 + http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C03%5C08%5Cstory_8-3-2007_pg11_9 + http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25682839_ITM + http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30735161_ITM + http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19140200_ITM + http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19144115_ITM to convince me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: let's go through each cited reference to show why we have nothing resembling a valid article so far. Links 1 and 2 are primary sources (produced by the Pakistani government) and thus fail the requirement for "independence from the subject" mandated by . Really, do you think minutes and declarations of meetings can be used as reliable sources? Link 3 violates , but even if it didn't, the information is trivial and irrelevant. Again: do you see this information being used ''anywhere else'' on Wikipedia? No, it's only being included here out of a perceived "need" to "expand" this article. It says nothing about "Argentina–Pakistan relations", but rather about what the editor who added it ''thinks'' constitutes Argentina–Pakistan relations, but is in fact trivial in the extreme. Link 4 is about Brazil, so that's irrelevant. Link 5 is an essay by the Canadian Government which in any case says nothing specifically about Argentina–Pakistan relations. Links 6 and 7 are directories, and as pointed out, Diplomatic missions of Pakistan and Diplomatic missions of Argentina fully cover that information already. Still waiting on any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - none of the references do that yet. Let's not allow our standards to slip just to fill a perceived need, all right
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: Please can we hold fire on deleting entries on  bilateral relations pending the outcome of the  Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Bilateral_international_relations | central discussion on this class of article?  There is growing support for these articles and for a specific guideline to define what makes a bilateral relationship notable - analogous to say  which allows us to rank as notable any musician who’s had a hit in a national chart, even if she hasn’t been the subject of multiple non trivial journalistic or academic studies.  Until we have the new guideline editors can spend hours finding sources on these relationships only to see the article deleted by opponents who zealously appeal to a strict interpretation of existing guidelines, which while worthy aren’t specifically tailed to address bilateral relations.   Once a specific guideline is in place these articles can be improved accordingly or deleted if they don't meet the agreed criteria – and much less time will be wasted editing in vain and on these AFD discussions. (changed this from strong keep to a comment as I see I accidently voted again
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:music)