Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

:{{la|Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations}} ([{{fullurl:Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The very definition of random. I hope no one objects to the bundling, as it should seem apparent that a pair of islands populated by 400,000 is not going to have much of a significant relationship with, say, Kazakhstan or Vietnam, or any of these places. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Uruguay relations and numerous recent precedents, bilateral relations are not inherently notable, and these fall squarely into that category. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

:{{la|Malaysia–Malta relations}}

:{{la|Malta–Uruguay relations}}

:{{la|Malta–Peru relations}}

:{{la|Colombia–Malta relations}}

:{{la|Malta–Montenegro relations}} (note: the date of Malta's recognition of Montenegro is recorded at Foreign relations of Montenegro)

:{{la|Finland–Malta relations}}

:{{la|Malta–Kazakhstan relations}}

:{{la|Malta–Thailand relations}}

:{{la|Malta–Vietnam relations}}

• Delete all except Finland–Malta relations. With the exception of the one that I've mentioned, there seems to be nothing to confer notability for any of them. (The reason for keeping the Finland-Malta one is that both countries are members of the European Union. Or is that irrelevant?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• No, not exactly irrelevant, but if that's all there is to the relationship, then Member State of the European Union does a nice job of handling it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. No evidence of notability was provided when these articles were mass-produced and it's very unlikely that there is any. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all. Nothing notable in any of them. Quantpole (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Purge them all with fire Completely random relations with various countries-nothing notable about them. Cheers. I'^mperator 12:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• delete if any two countries don't have mutual embassies (at minimum) relations are clearly not notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. Non-notable, no assertion of the significance of relations between these pairs of countries compared to any other two random pairs or to their impact on history. Copy the scant information into the relevant "Foreign relations of..." articles listed in "See also" sections. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - due to the lack of embassies. Note Foreign relations of Montenegro, which has a table showing that country's relationship with Malta. This kind of a table entry is still permitted to exist for each pair of countries, so there will still be appropriate places to document whatever is noteworthy about Malta's diplomatic relations. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::Comment - I don't understand why we would keep Finland–Malta relations. These countries are both in the EU, but they don't maintain embassies, and their mutual relations are so lacking in signficance that they are not even mentioned in Foreign relations of Finland or Foreign relations of Malta. I think such an article would have to be justified by real sources. A quick Google search doesn't find anything to show the importance of that connection. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all as a maintainability nightmare. Countries don't need mutual embassies to have notable relations; e.g. when they are engaged in a war. But these are clearly not notable. The only thing that would be worth preserving is the circumstances of establishment of diplomatic relations. These could go to the foreign relations of Malta page, in some (perhaps all?) cases also to the corresponding page of the other country. If this information is actually true; it's unreferenced. But given copy-paste errors such as "Peru is represented in Thailand through its embassy in Rome (Italy)." in Malta–Peru relations, I would say it's probably preferable to take this information directly from the original source. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

::PS: My !vote explicitly applies to Malta–Montenegro relations and Finland–Malta relations as well as the others. I just double-checked that while they may be slightly less absurd than the others in that one can add a few more irrelevant lines to them, they still make no sense and are simply not notable, not even taking into account the [http://www.inter-serv.com/news/tax/2008.11.04-montenegro-malta-double-tax-treaty-protocol.htm double-tax treaty] between Malta and Montenegro. It would be like having an article Heidelberg–Mannheim roads. Yes, there is a motorway connecting these two German cities as well as some other roads. But this doesn't make this specific article topic notable; there are no books or even newspaper articles on "Malta and Finland: An example of fruitful international relations", or "Roads and Railroads connecting Mannheim and Heidelberg". These articles also have no technical justification such as collecting several other, more notable, topics. And they make no sense (at least at the moment) as spin-outs from other articles. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all of them. Most of these are Groubanis, and what little information is in these can all be mentioned in Foreign relations of Malta. Apparently, if you're wanting to get in touch with Malta, you call your Ambassador to Italy. For faster service, telephone the Maltese foreign ministry (011-356-2124-2191) and ask for Biff. Mandsford (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC) P.S.-- I've read DGG's intervention in this one, and I think it's an inappropriate action that I hope will be challenged. There's no need to renominate all of these mass-produced articles individually. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

::{{anote}} This discussion was originally speedily closed on the grounds that it was unsuitable as a mass nomination, but has been reopened based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_9.--Aervanath (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all except Finland As both are EU members, it should either be kept or discussed later. As for the others, no significant ties are present, so definitely delete them. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all as non-notable, trivial intersections of countries with nothing significant to say. There are upwards of 35,000 possible intersections of two countries in the world, and in a huge majority of those cases the intersection is not important or notable — nothing has been written about it in third-party reliable sources, and anything that one has to say about the intersections would be no more than a directory entry. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all I'm not quite sure why this was relisted. JBsupreme (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• :It was relisted because DGG closed it early on the grounds that the articles should be listed separately. This decision was overturned at DRV, with instruction to relist here. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Snow delete all but Finland-Malta relations. Open a new AfD for Finland-Malta relations which has enough support that it should be discussed separately (though I suspect that article is also doomed).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Malta–Montenegro relations and Finland–Malta relations, but delete the rest. This a bit harder a distinction than the most. Malta does not have significant relations with the Asian and South American countries mentioned, but it appears that it does with Finland, and could possibly with Montenegro. I'm not going to argue to keep the others. Just based on geography, I'd keep Malta–Montenegro relations: they are relatively close, both are on the Mediterranean, have ancient ties from early first Century Christians (I seem to recall that St. Paul may have visited both of them), both were colonies of the Roman Empire, etc. It is feasible that relative trade could increase. See my standards. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Isn't it rather anachronistic to claim a notable relationship between Malta (independent since 1964) and Montenegro (2006) dating back to Roman times? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• No. Malta was independent at various times before 1964, and Montenegro was separate at various times before 2006. European history is complex.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• In the Middle Ages, yes. That still doesn't take us back to Roman times, when Montenegro wasn't even inhabited by Slavs. - Biruitorul ^Talk 12:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• :Wow, give me a break, please, folks. You are pickier than my students when I have an unclear true or false question on a final exam. Note, "ancient ties from early first Century ... etc." (emphasis added). Malta and Montenegro have had more in common since 101 C.E. There was the Black Death, the Venetian Republic, Winston Churchill in World War I, blah, blah (Professor Logan waves his arms around in front of the class as he performs his trademark Torts dance at this point). You know what I mean. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the two per Bearian I agree the others are unlikely, and I continue to think these would have been better handled separately. DGG (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - I don't consider either Finland–Malta relations or Malta–Montenegro relations to be notable - there clearly isn't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:37, 18 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.