Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Malta relations

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

another totally random combination. no resident embassies. All I could find is just one article from 2001. other than coverage is always in multilateral context. Estonian govt says only 2 minor agreements and trade is exceedingly low at less that 1000 euros each way. is that enough reasons? LibStar (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable due to insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete similar to my other comments -- this is now getting to be clean-up before multi-country large articles get finished. Collect (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Foreign relations of Malta which contains the information - but keep the title as a redirect to make it easier for readers to find the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since there is nothing more to be "merged." I have no particular opposition to a redirect after deletion, but Estonia-Malta relations is, after all, a highly implausible search term.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing says anything about this nothing topic. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteImagine if every country in the world needed an article for it's political relations with every other country in the world?Knobbly (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Estonia for "Malta", and Malta for "Estonia" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 28 May 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.