Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Slovakia relations

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

non resident ambassadors. the only thing in common is that they joined the EU at the same time. besides that all media coverage I found mentions these 2 countries only in a multilateral not bilateral context. [http://news.google.com.au/archivesearch?q=malta+slovakia&ned=au&hl=en&scoring=r] LibStar (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Both countries are members of the EU but on top of that I have found some refs to justify notability,[http://f1plus.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081010/local/malta-slovakia-discuss-cooperation], [http://www.nbs.sk/en/financial-market-supervision/banking-sector-and-securities-dealers-supervision/topical-and-most-frequently-questions/memorandum-of-understanding1/memorandum-of-understanding-foreign-supervisory-authorities/memorandum-of-understanding-malta], [http://www.slovakiamalta.com/aboutslovakia.html], [http://www.orderofmaltatotheslovakembassy.org/index4.html]. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Question Nominator, did media coverage search include Slovakian language and Maltese language results? --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

: No, but you are welcome to. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent sources. To address Marcusmax' points. That they are EU members is documented at Member State of the European Union. Link 1 talks about their foreign ministers meeting (relations are "excellent" - surprise!); that happens [http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=foreign+ministers+meet literally] every week of every year and goes unnoticed by us, outside this series of nonsense articles. Link 2 violates WP:PSTS, its importance not being validated by secondary sources. Link 3 says nothing about the relationship. Neither does link 4, which is about the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, located in Rome. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Link two can be used per WP:PRIMARY so long as it does not make any exceptional claim, but rather facts. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Can be used for what? To tell us that two banks, one of which doesn't even have an article here, signed a document "expressing their willingness to co-operate on the basis of mutual trust and understanding"? Is there any reason this should interest us, or aren't we sort of forcing the idea of WP:N here? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oh and my apologizes for adding in the order of Malta, obviously I got things mixed up. Im stricking that link now. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

:::If one could figure out how to explain the strong symbolic and emotive nature of the Order of Malta, as it relates to modern Malta, then the link could easily stay in the article. It has 13,000 volunteer medical personnel and 80,000 permanent volunteers; it's like a centuries-old precursor to Médecins Sans Frontières, and Malta's emotional and sentimental value must be an important part of the organization's image and cachet.... I can't really figure out a way to effectively explain this, in the article. If I could do so I would do so. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment One could ask "What is Malta doing? What is the nature of their foreign policy activity? Malta occupies a strategic place in the middle of the Mediterranean, vis a vis maritime affairs like Piracy in Somalia; and no doubt the country is an important part of the Africa-Europe solar electriciy transmission infrastructure (under construction; see Hassi R'Mel integrated solar combined cycle power station). The "Ministeru ta' L-Affarijiet Barranin"[http://www.foreign.gov.mt/default.aspx?MLEV=2&MDIS=8] at the center of this nomination has a very nice site; and what should be said about the ministry and its activities in this or any related article? --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Commment w:sk:Malta seems like a competent article. w:mt:Slovakkja needs some expansion. --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Another stub about bilateral relations of X and Y which would be better covered by "Foreign relations of X" and "Foreign relations of Y" to allow 200 articles rather than 20,000 stubs. Wikipedia is not a directory. The websites of the foreign ministries will always be better sources than these stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Question If the article is deleted, then how will "Foreign relations of Malta" and "Foreign relations of Slovakia" ever be written? --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

: can you discuss the above on the relevant talk page of articles, your comment does not address the AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

::? How does it not address the AfD? Please explain. AfD means "Article for Deletion", am I right? I am addressing the topic of the article, rather directly!....Perhaps the article could be considered in the context of Malta's presence on the international stage. If one is not interested in Malta and/or Slovakia and/or bilateral relations, then why would one have nominated the article in the first place? --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Have you voted yet? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I am just not sure what my vote is. It is difficult to proceed without an open discussion. If we could understand Malta's role in the European Union and its strategic role as part of the European southeastern sea frontier, we could start to put together an article "Foreign relations of Malta". --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

::::To assesse Malta's place in the world, it has something to do, Eurocentrically, with it being one of the first safe European ports of call on the perilous journey from the East, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, through piracy in Somalia and piracy in the Strait of Malacca, to Suez, the Mediterranean and safely to Gibraltar and South Europe. It's strategic. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Has not established the notabilty of the subject matter. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know the notability guideline for foreign relations, but according to Slovak sources there is some room for improvement. In the sources I've added (Slovak government website and major conservative Slovak daily newspaper "Hospodárske noviny") you can find in addition to trivial diplomatic jargon also some economic data and futher information on Slovak-Maltese relations. Any scandals or unusual events, just simple information about economic and political cooperation. This could be useful for the readers. Btw, it's a bit surprising for me - someone create article without further care, leave it and let all the work and arguing on others. This is irresponsible editing. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No coverage of the article topic as stated in the title, fails WP:N. Two of the references are primary, fail WP:RS. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, meets Wikipedia standard of verifiability and notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - there is too much sourced content for it to be replicated in the tables in Foreign relations of Malta and Foreign relations of Slovakia. Presumably more will be added - relations between the two countries are still relatively new. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the page still requires much work but sufficient sources are available to stand up notability and permit expansion. Smile a While (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep well referenced article. meets all notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 22:05, 16 May 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.