2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China: WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread  impact of this visit.  Saqib ( talk ) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan .  Saqib ( talk ) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N .  The remover Saqib WP:POINT , did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles.  Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates WP:FAITH .  -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk ) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TinaLees-Jones , But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N.  It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP.  And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion.  Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article.  — Saqib ( talk ) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Saqib : the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention ( WP:N ).  It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations.  I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians.  WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention.  If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N .  -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk ) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as Nawaz Sharif 's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia ), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum .  then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later.  The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually.   -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk ) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TinaLees-Jones , Notability is not temporary and WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.  State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet.  All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage.  Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another  routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT.  The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT.  I won't delve into this further.  I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments.  — Saqib ( talk ) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very weak keep.  This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies.  All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media.  However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to ! vote delete in good faith.  Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Toadspike , But  I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit.  Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif 's visit to China back in 2014.  That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions!  But we don't even have an article about that visit.  So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff.  WP isn't a newspaper, right?  — Saqib ( talk ) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable.  Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF .  I already marked my ! vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want?  Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Saqib .  - Amigao ( talk ) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect (or merge) to China–Pakistan relations .  The nom is right, the article violates WP:NOTNEWS and we have no WP:SUSTAINED coverage due to this visit being way too recent.  It may or may not gather sufficient coverage to justify keeping the article in the future, but as it currently stands, it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a standalone article.  Pilaz ( talk ) 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A non-notable visit.  Not deserving a page on Wikipedia .  Would not argue against a Redirect (or merge ) as an alternate to deletion -- which equals it does not deserve a page. The event was not significant and did not precede any other notable event that resulted from the visit. In this case the article fails the Inclusion criteria #4 , lacking "enduring significance". The event was just routine and the new coverage was just news of the event with no lasting historical significance. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:14, 25 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect