Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Pakistan 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   no consensus, bordering on delete.  Sandstein  05:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Malta–Pakistan relations

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

Yet another bilateral relations stub randomly created by Plumoyr, apparently based on the presumption that the title is something that should be notable. Listing after a contested PROD. Embassies for the two countries are not even located in each others' countries. Relations thus far have produced nothing of worldly significance compared to any other two. Little content, no context, fails WP:N BlueSquadron  Raven  22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the usual reasons, non-naotable bilateral relation. As JJL noted on the Hungary-Pakistan AfD, it may be time to move towards drafting a policy or guideline to deal with the issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; no signs of notability and none is likely. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Okay it is not the closest relationship out there but at the same time there seem to be just enough connections to justify notability. Here are a few links that might help this article,, , and the links that are found within the article currently should be enough to prove WP:N. -  Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The articles cited by Marcusmax (and whether or not you agree that these show notability, kudos to him for showing what's out there so that we can judge for ourselves) are
 * | Pakistani human traffickers use Malta as staging post for Europe,
 * | Malta, Pakistan review, strengthen bilateral ties,
 * | Pakistan, Malta agree to continue ongoing cooperation at international forums
 * The last two are both from June 2007; Malta's foreign minister met with his counterpart in Pakistan; the first one is intriguing ("according to a report published in a leading Pakistani daily newspaper on Friday... sources within the Pakistani Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), say that the illegal migration of Pakistanis to Europe is being carried out through Malta, from where the migrants are being transported by ship to Sicily and onward to countries such as Italy and Spain")-- Granted, this is about illegal activity that does not involve diplomatic relations between Malta and Pakistan, but I would be surprised if it did not affect the relations between the two nations. In retrospect, DGG's renomination order was correct. Mandsford (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll throw in one more on the illegal trafficking issue, this one by The International News. Thanks Mansford for interpreting these sources I only want people to at least attempt to look first before heading to Afd. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 00:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I've seen a lot of these bogus "relations" pages (rightly) deleted, but they were ones with no sources and essentially no nontrivial relations between the countries. The three sources given by MarcusMax convince me that there is something here.  One of those sources is not public access and I found a public access version of the same article if anyone wants to read it:   That article in particular seems to be important for establishing notability.  Cazort (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I commend those who found some sources, but let me explain my rationale. There's a whole series of "human trafficking in..." articles. There's certainly scope for a Human trafficking in Pakistan article, and I believe this information would fit much better there. (Also Human trafficking in Malta, if appropriate.) The other links are very boilerplate, of the "hey, let's strengthen our relationship!" sort. - Biruitorul Talk 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence that there is anything more than the usual workings of international politics (formal recognition, basic trade agreements, something being moved illicitly from point A to point B via point C) here. The types of things shown as RS would be found for essentially any two randomly chosen countries. JJL (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete' there is no evidence findable in reliable sources that the malta-pakistan bilateral relationship rises above the level of extremely trivial. Fails GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep! - This has been turned into a propoganda. I think the user who nominated this hasn't seen these for example: India–Mexico relations, Belarus–India relations, Bulgaria–India relations, Cyprus–India relations, Finland–India relations, India–Mexico relations, India–Paraguay relations, India–Ukraine relations (all this is for one country only). Have fun handing out deletion notices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teckgeek (talk • contribs) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of these articles and I think the vast majority of them ought to be deleted, and have actually chipped in in a few discussions to delete a few of them. But I still am leaning to a keep of this one--although I'm certainly not going to cry you a river if it is deleted.  Cazort (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Well, here's a difficult one, according to my new standards. There have been no academic conferences discussing the relationship; no state visits; no ambassadors; no recall of ministers; no stories in pop-culture; and the two nations are widely separated.  However, the two nations were once colonies of the British Empire; were (are?) members of the British Commonwealth; have had stories in reliable sources; and have an issue in common.  It is not clear that they have a reasonably significant trade. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep per sources given by Mansford. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:44, 14 April 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.