Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Pakistan relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Malta–Pakistan relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nominating a 2nd time because the first time was very borderline. no resident embassies and my own subsequent searches reveal a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations. There's this meeting with the usual "we'll agree to cooperate" and I note in the first AfD a few others but they're mainly little bits of news rather than real evidence of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect for development. No sources discuss these relations. Google finds a couple of news reports like "Malta and Pakistan agreed to continue ongoing cooperation between them in United Nations and other international forums during talks", but every country with a working government makes similar statements once a week – there is no source with an analysis suggesting that these relations are notable. There is also mention of human trafficking, but that is a topic for an article on illegal entry to Europe (Malta is just a link in a chain used to shuttle immigrants). There is no reason to believe there are any notable relations between Malta and Pakistan. Johnuniq (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real content in the article.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete Still has no valid notability likely to be found, Permutation and combination of all nations, taken two at a time, is not sufficient. Collect (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability due to apparent lack of multiple reliable sources with substantial or significant coverage of bilateral relation as such between the two countries. Also Wikipedia is not a directory of all combinations of countries taken 2 at a time. A few news stories from the previous AFD showed that there was some contact between the 2 countries, but those were not about their bilateral relation as such and do not make a good case for the notability of the bilateral relationship, just as a story that Obama flew from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia to Egypt would not show the "trilateral relationship" of the 3 countries to be significant. Note: there could be even more robostubs about "trilateral" or "quadrilateral relationships" than the 20,000 or so duple combinations of the 200 or so countries. They would mostly be equally non-notable, even though many multilateral trade relationships or treaties could be documented. Coverage of the relationship as such would be needed. Edison (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep You're kidding right. Did anyone read the 1st Afd? There were sources provided detailing ties based on human trafficking and developing trade relations. Try these.    Should have been a keep in the first place. LibStar even took part in the first debate, knew of those sources and chose to try to delete it again instead of improve it by adding the sources to the page. This debate is clearly the result of lazy editing (no one chose to actually include the sources) not any underlying problem of notability with the subject matter.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I've added the sources.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be careful. Accusing people of "lazy editing" is hardly productive, and while to you, laziness might "clearly" be the root cause of this AfD, that's just your biased opinion. One could just as easily say this debate is a result of people not understanding or choosing to ignore WP:N. And there's nothing wrong with reopening a debate that was closed as "no consensus". No consensus means that there was no consensus, and so presumably with more discussion (i.e. a new AfD) it just might be possible to reach consensus. The closing admin even noted that there was almost consensus ("no consensus, bordering on delete"), and so now that 7 weeks have passed, relisting seems especially appropriate in this case. Immediately relisting an AfD closed as keep would be entirely inappropriate, but this is about as far from that as possible. Yilloslime T C  01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This debate is a result of the page being nominated for deletion. It was nominated for deletion because it was inadequately sourced. That issue has now been resolved in my opinion. I have no problems with articles being listed for deletion that deserve deletion. The problem with this article is that a bunch of people took the time to debate deleting it, took the time to find sources for the article, but didn't take the time to add those sources. It would have been just as easy to add those sources as nominate it for deletion again. That's the problem. The notability of these relations is not an issue anymore since those sources have now been added.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability of these relations is not an issue anymore  that is purely your opinion. your "added sources" includes 2 articles with the usual "we want to cooperate" without concrete evidence of notable relations such as significant, trade, investment, actual bilateral agreements. It still fails that in consideration of these added articles. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - "vows to continue cooperation" are always red flags that not much of substance is going on in a relationship. And indeed, the topic utterly lacks multiple, reliable, independent sources, so we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 03:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look at the article again. It has multiple, reliable, independent sources.. It doesn't lack these "utterly".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Article is better sourced now that in first AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * there's as much text in the references than in the actual article. LibStar (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete in the absence of in depth, non-trivial covereage of the topic of this araticle anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the sources above. You and I might disagree with the meaning of the word "trivial", but these independent sources thought these relations were notable enough to write about.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While the text was bloated by the addition of non-encyclopedic trivia which we simply wouldn't and shouldn't feature anywhere, the core of the article still around the same the same: the two countries exists and have some sort of relationship with each other, a relationship which no one but a few wiki editors have dealt with as a separate topic. The "rescue" experiment is a joke. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMHO, Non-notable and unencyclopedic. Yilloslime T C  18:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable trivia. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Trade treaties alone do not make for a notable relationship. The human trafficking incidents are criminal matters, not diplomatic ones. Both being members of the Commonwealth make their relations to the United Kingdom significant, not to each other. Still no claim for the notability of the relationship as a whole on the world stage, or compared to any other two countries. Non-notable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  04:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Another article about trivial bilateralism. Eusebeus (talk) 18:25, 8 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.