Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan–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 16:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan–Malta relations

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

another random combination from the obsessive creator. one state visit doesn't justify an article. no evidence of any agreements between these countries. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The link in the article | Japan Foreign Ministry shows little to write home about-- no investment by Japan in Malta after 1988, three exhibitions in the 1990s, last visit by a Malta President or premier was nearly 20 years ago. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - in isolation, a state visit means little, and everyone buys cars and electronics from Japan. No other evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW Yet another one of these ludicrous pairings of completely random articles. Damn shame there isn't a speedy delete like "Delete per similar example". Cheers.  I 'mperator 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No active diplomatic relations, not notable. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-subject. WillOakland (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and the current addresses of consulates and status of diplomatic relations is better kept up to date via a link from the article about the country to its foreign relations department website, than having thousands of stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per ImperatorExercitus. Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep pending the result of the discussion at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, which is directly related to the issue of notability, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Nomination for deletion is pre-mature and could preempt and poison the discussion which may see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved. Wikipedia will not implode if these articles exist while discussion is on going. Martintg (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. heading for WP:SNOW LibStar (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * sure it can be considered a valid & reasonable !vote for keep, you may equally reasonably think otherwise, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is one of a series of "Japan-Country X" bilateral relation articles, which is in turn part of a larger "Country X-Country Y" series - all of which aricles could be improved through expansion with history of relations, trade figures, cultural exchange, and referencing. Notability is subjective, and simply because many of these articles are currently stubs is not grounds for deletion. --MChew (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would set a dangerous precedent. Yes, some of these probably could be expanded, but we shouldn't have to sift through all the articles to figure out which. This user was blocked back in February and we're still cleaning up the mess. When someone creates an article effort should be made to make it the best article the creator can possibly make. They should not write half-finished articles and rely others to make them fit the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they should not have been written this way. It's a very bad example, that has unreasonably made enormous extra work for many people. But having been written, removing them without working on them is an almost equally bad precedent, again making unnecessary work that could have been used to improve them. The authors have a responsibility, and everyone who sees an article after that may not have an individual responsibility to help them, but the community does. What everyone does have is a responsibility not to actively prevent possible improvement.  DGG (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

*Keep. This could easily be improved into a decent article. As it is, it's nothing impressive, but there is some evidence of a relationship. This is part of a movement, in large part thanks to the nominator, of attempting to eradicate all such articles, regardless of whether the two countries actually have a relationship. Respectfully, the nominator should exercise due diligence before getting trigger happy with the AfD tags. HJMitchell   You rang?  15:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no active diplomatic relations to write home about. The history of relations, like the fact that Japanese warships were based in Malta during WW1, or that the Crown Prince spent three days there in 1921, is all in the past. Also Malta put a quota on Japanese textiles in 1934, so relations can't have been that good even back then. HistoryBridge (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Fg2 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of what HistoryBridge mentions--those are exactly the sort of things that make for notability. Historic notability counts, positive or negative. DGG (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: One "keep" vote is clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. Another "keep" vote is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument based on similar articles many of which have already been deleted and are still being deleted. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- having thoroughly searched for sources on this relationship, it appears my assertion that the article could be improved was mistaken. As such, my remarks to that effect are stricken, however, my comment on the wider issue stands. HJMitchell    You rang?  15:25, 2 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.