Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Slovakia 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   keep. JForget 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Malta–Slovakia relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

the last AfD seemed more like no consensus, note it was closed by an admin who is now banned from closing bilateral AfDs. in any case, these 2 countries do not have embassies, and almost all of the third party coverage is based on mulitlateral relations. . simply being EU members does not guarantee automatic notability...I would like to see keep votes actually show evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why prime ministerial visits don't count as 3rd party coverage... they must have said something during the visits. Polarpanda (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added several third party independent links (in English) describing bilateral relations in the shape of official visits and six bilateral agreements spelling out cooperation in the avoidance of double taxation, air services, health care, combating crime, visa abolition, and investment. Multilateral relations are also obviously a type of relations. Both are European countries in the Euro Zone and have close multilateral relations based on trade and illegal immigration agreements. Notability is established. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article should not have been renominated for deletion. There were links to 3rd party coverage that were found in the first discussion that were never added to the article but clearly helped in the keep result. This looks like a second bite at the apple after a result the nominator didn't like.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * any article can be nominated or renominated for deletion. the best way to save articles is to improve them with reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although, the Article Rescue Squadron has been somewhat successful in saving valuable material from deletion, they have not been as successful as I would have liked. Many of these relations articles, which could have been improved if anyone cared to do the work, have been needlessly deleted. That is in large part a result of cavalier attitude toward deletion. A more appropriate course of action would be to ask the creator to improve the article, to put out calls for help on the talk page or at the relevant national wikiproject, and then to attempt improvements by oneself. An Afd should be the last resort in a situation like this where articles with obvious potential merit are being put on the chopping block.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as sources have been added and the article has been expanded. That is how AfD should ideally work, they should encourage editors to improve the article. Thanks for the good work Cdogsimmons. Pantherskin (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - an absurd premise for an article, of course. Look: two EU members are going to have some degree of interaction. They're going to sign scraps of paper on the ever-so-mundane themes of "cooperation in the avoidance of double taxation, air services, health care, combating crime, visa abolition, and investment". They're going to have "memoranda of understanding" "setting the framework within which authorities from the two countries" will go about their routine bureaucratic work. Their presidents (who, I might add, are figureheads) are going to shake hands with each other. They're going to say friendly words about the other party on rare occasions. They're going to have "excellent" relations, because what on earth else would we bloody expect for a small central European country and a pair of islands 850 miles away, on a continent that has abolished war and clings to pacifism as a sacred totem?
 * Now that we've cleared that up, let's be mindful of what the problem is here: the lack of multiple sources actually covering "Malta–Slovakia relations" as such in any meaningful depth. Determined and foolhardy Wikipedians declaring such and such flotsam they may come by on Google to evidence "relations" does not an encyclopedic topic make. For that we need actual sources describing an actual phenomenon, not trivia we'd never notice outside this series of nonsense articles.
 * Does Wikipedia have a word for the opposite of a peacock term? When people talk about "trivia" and "scraps of paper" they are engaging in debate by using the opposite of a peacock term, anyone have a suggestion on what to call it as a retronym? What is the opposite of a peacock, what is an ugly bird? Should it be called "turkey talk" or "trash talk"?


 * By the way: "41 years of lasting cooperation"? Putting aside the peacock language, is anyone as amused as I am by the assumption that it will always and forever be 41 years since 1968? Add, add your trivia in peace, but go ahead ignoring such glaring errors. - Biruitorul Talk 02:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One wikipedian's flotsam may be another's obsession. Please do not refer to other Wikipedians as foolhardy in the future (particularly when you are referring to me). It is insulting and violates our policy of WP:No personal attacks. I think you will find that the information in this article is also well sourced. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [W]hat on earth else would we bloody expect for a small central European country and a pair of islands 850 miles away, on a continent that has abolished war and clings to pacifism as a sacred totem? Nothing is obvious, as Foreign relations of Slovakia will tell you. 96T (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, much coverage in secondary sources. Six bilateral agreements also constitute relevant bilateral relations in my book. Headlines such as "Malta and Slovakia to strengthen bilateral political and economic relations" and "Improving ties with Slovakia" indicates that Malta-Slovakia relations as a subject, and not just elements of their relations, is given independent coverage. 96T (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, there seems to be enough in the sources to demonstrate notability for this topic. There are actual sources about the links between the two countries in this case (this is not always the case for these relations articles). As per Biruitorul's point above, I have removed the 41 years line because Slovakia has not existed for this long anyway (the source isn't in English so I'm not sure in what way it mentions their 41 years of cooperation). Mah favourite (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets every standard of notability and for verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:22, 9 December 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.