Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Ukraine 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Malta–Ukraine relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. almost all the coverage i could find was multilateral not bilateral. the best is a presidential meeting in 2008. neither country has embassies, no binding agreements, just "cooperation" ones. Those wanting to keep must show actual evidence of real bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Query - do any of the supporting references directly support any of the contentions in the article itself or this this just pure WP:SYNTH? I get that there are a couple of articles that cover specific initiatives/comments/visits but those "ideas" seem to have been extrapolated to create a broad article about bilateral foreign relations. This is very different to Australia–New Zealand relations or Canada–United States relations. I'm not trying to start a WP:OTHERSTUFF discussion but those are established relationships with treaties, regular visits and shared history. This just seems to be two "random" countries slapped together in an article with a couple of minor events tenuously holding them together. Israel–Ukraine relations and Portugal–Ukraine relations are much the same - basically WP:OR with a single "event" being used to justify a much broader article. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, well spoken Stalwart. basically a lot of stubs started by a serial now banned creator, random combinations with very little interactions are hardly encyclopaedic. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The fact that even though these countries have diplomatic relations with each other, neither of them has an embassy in the other country, tends to suggest that their relations are not that notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So-called "Original Research" is a prohibition against the first publication of novel scientific theories and unsourced original essays. There need not be a book out there or an article in the New York Times for a topic to be encyclopedic. Every single molecule of writing on WP that is not copyright violation is technically "original research" — "original" in that it is not copied but appears here in a specific form for the first time, "research" in that some facts are included and others ignored, at the discretion of the writer. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonably fair assessment, I think, but I suppose my take was that we're dealing with something that falls more into the category of WP:SYNTH than straight WP:OR (though they come under the same policy). Essentially someone has brought together a few events which are not part of a wider (proactive) foreign relations effort between the two countries (all mostly routine stuff) and drawn the conclusion that there is a formal diplomatic relationship between the two that should be called "Malta–Ukraine relations". Per your further comment below; I could only imagine there would be plenty of coverage for the relationship between the USA and Soviet Russia/USSR in the period you cite, regardless of whether or not they had mutual embassies. I would suggest, by way of example, that Belgium–Ukraine relations and Sweden–Ukraine relations are probably okay. Also a bit WP:SYNTH, but there seems to be more evidence to substantiate a "relationship" in both cases, especially on historical grounds, regardless of diplomatic missions. I wouldn't agree to a bundled nomination of all "X - Ukraine relations" articles but on a case-by-case basis, this one probably doesn't make the grade, in my opinion. Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic is encyclopedic and is sourced out sufficiently to pass GNG, esoteric though the topic may be. Countries need not have embassies or consulates to have foreign relations — see the case of the USA and Soviet Russia/USSR for the years 1917 to 1933 for example. I realize the nominator hates this type of article with a passion, but it really would be better to grit teeth and move along if sources are showing. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * see WP:ADHOM, you can't use the nominator as a reason to keep. that's a selective example of no embassies, US has no embassies in Cuba and North Korea, but these are clearly notable non friendly relations. no embassies and no bindings agreements and no significant trade, no regular meetings at state leve. Carrite has failed to provide sources to support notable relations. all this article hinges on is one presidential meeting. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Carrite's example is patently facetious: from the moment the hiatus in US-Russia relations stopped (and probably before), books and articles have been written on the topic, as well as on US-North Korea relations, US-Cuba relations, and so forth.
 * In the real world, as opposed to the pretend world of Wikipedia editors inventing fictitious topics on random bilateral pairings no one's heard of, Ukraine has notable relations with probably one country outside its immediate neighbors (the US) and, among supranational bodies, the EU. In the real world, Malta's notable relations are limited to Italy, Libya, the United Kingdom and (possibly, by default) the US. And please, don't take my word for it: here is the International Relations Department of the University of Malta with contact information, and here is the leadership of Harvard's Ukrainian Research Institute.
 * Also, let's not pick on LibStar: my only objection is that he should be redirecting the articles he doesn't like, since unless someone is stalking him or by chance watching those pages, there's a far lower likelihood of anyone noticing their disappearance, or of attracting a crowd that's suddenly "discovered" their existence.
 * In any case, the problem is not the "esoteric" nature of the "topic", but rather its non-existence. Yes, a couple of press releases from the mouthpiece of the Ukrainian government, as well as a blurb on its foreign ministry's site, do mention that officials of that country once interacted with those of Malta, as officials of every country interact with officials of other countries every week of every year without this encyclopedia taking note (and rightly so). They also signed a couple of pieces of paper, of the sort that hundreds are signed every year, again without drawing our notice, as such things are entirely routine and non-noteworthy. But as for actual coverage of "Malta–Ukraine relations" in any sort of depth or contextually relevant venue: not a chance. - Biruitorul Talk 21:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - stubby, and maybe necessarily so (though Maltese/Ukrainian speakers would be helpful), but on a highly imporant encyclopaedic topic - there's a real bilateral relation here, despite absurd assertions to the contrary; that it doesn't rise to the importance level of the Cold War is a rediciulous standard of notability, way, way, way above and beyond what's usually done. Wily D 08:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * having relations is not the same as notable relations. Did you bother to look for sources? LibStar (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you?


 * For one, you're setting up a straw man. No one said a bilateral pairing need "rise to the importance level of the Cold War", only that it be covered, as such, in independent reliable sources. For another, nothing of what you've presented even remotely rises to that level, nor does it validate an article. These types of random meeting between officials happen every week of every year, and are not normally picked up by this encyclopedia (nor should they be), except in this absurd context of a group of determined Wikipedia editors "rescuing" articles on topics no one's ever heard of. Again, in the real world (let's stop pretending for a moment), the bilateral relations of Malta that actually have any significance are with Italy, Libya, the United Kingdom and perhaps the United States, while Ukraine's are limited to its neighbors and again, possibly the US. Given the utter lack of sources on "Malta-Ukraine relations", and the lack of anything but routine news reports on anything having to do with both countries, the only legitimate option is deletion. - Biruitorul Talk 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There seem to be a smattering of articles in reliable sources about these countries' relationship, as cited above, and it passes WP:GNG as significant on those grounds, but only slightly. --Batard0 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ: the sources, such as they are, present evidence of a couple of encounters between officials of the two countries that a group of Wikipedia editors has decided constitutes "Malta-Ukraine relations". But there is no source actually describing such a relationship as such, nor is one ever likely to turn up, given the circumstances. - Biruitorul Talk 18:22, 24 October 2012 (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.