Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Malta 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. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Belgium–Malta relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

whilst I note each country has embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly multilateral and of course sport. English search, French search. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any independent sources addressing Belgium-Malta relations in French or English, either. I  didn't search in Dutch, that wouldn't be a bad idea, but I don't hold out much hope for that since French came up empty.  If anyone finds anything specifically addressing Belgium-Malta relations in-depth in independent (non-government) sources in any language (German is a another good possiblity), I'll joyfully reconsider this opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another pairing of random countries with no notability established. I haven't checked, aren't many of these by the same author? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and he was banned but for some reason the articles weren't. Drawn Some (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The reasons for removal of content from banned users are pretty much involved with the user's actions after the ban, not before. Banned users are no longer allowed to edit, and thus any new contributions from them via socks or IPs are not welcome.  But that reasoning really has no direct application to edits from the users from before the bans.  Barring special cases where the edits are directly related to the reason for the ban, for instance a serial copyright offender, the banning of an article's original creator does not put any particular negative stigma on the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete another mindless combinatorial article (if x is notable and y is notable then the intersect of x and y isn't necessarily notable). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No third-party coverage of the topic and its significance in world affairs. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability due to the lack of reliable and independent sources with significant discussion of the bilateral relations of the two countries. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They have embassies in each others' capitals and they are EU members. It's notable. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * and lack significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. simply having embassies and being part of the EU is not sufficient to establish notability, if you're going to vote keep please back it up with some better evidence. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Each country is notable on their own, but nothing in their relationship seems that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While Malta does have notable relations with some countries, Belgium is not one of them. Collect (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice: It has been suggested that AFDs and other discussions on this and similar articles be suspended. Please have your say on this at AN. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think Niteshift said it best: Each of these countries is notable in its own right, but nothing about their relationship appears notable. I'm not any evidence of significant coverage of this topic in third-party sources, so WP:N is not fulfilled. Yilloslime T C  00:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has no useful content and expansion is unlikely. No secondary sources discuss these relations. It is WP:SYNTHESIS to claim these relations are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of in-depth independent coverage of this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, not seeing much here, I can be swayed if sourcing and content is found but this one may have to be sacrificed while work is focussed on more likely cases. -- Banj e  b oi   12:04, 16 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.