Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Pakistan relations (3rd 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Pakistan relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article was previously deleted. article mentions the usual "we want more bilateral cooperation" meeting but lack of actual action. no resident embassies, no known agreements, no known significant trade or investment. mention of human trafficking is not enough to justify an article. general lack of coverage of topic [1]. Most Malta-Pakistan interaction is multilateral in terms of CHOGM or Pakistan-European Union relations. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references look fine to me, it is the media noticing the relationship that counts in GNG, not an artificial threshold of dollars of trade or number of state visits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned a threshold of trade but there appears to be no coverage of trade. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually this article content originally appeared in Foreign relations of Pakistan, however in line with Wikipedia:Article size policy, I created a new page namely Malta-Pakistan relations, and shifted the content to this page. I do agree that the relationship may not be "significant", however, I would like to point out that if this page is deleted, then information from this page will be either "orphaned," or dumped back on the original Foreign relations of Pakistan page. And both these are undesirable effects of deleting this page. Information in this page have "weight," and confines with Wikipedia original philosophy of providing the sum of all human knowledge. The fact that Malta has two honorary consulate in Pakistan (Lahore and Karachi), shows Malta's significant interest in Pakistan, despite being a small country. http://www.foreign.gov.mt/default.aspx?MDIS=4442 If there are any concerns regarding the quality of the article, then a better purpose can be served by requesting to "edit" the page rather then "deleting" the page.

(Jalal0 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

there is no substantial coverage to build up this article. Previous consensus was to delete. Honorary consulates are simply people who volunteer to do basic consul functions (usually from their home) and is hardly an indicator of relations like trade, agreements, economic assistance, migration etc. LibStar (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further argument to keep the page I would also like to point out that the whole purpose of wikipedia is to povide and share any knowledge which is encyclopedic in nature. This should therefore removes any barrier whatsoever to any consideration to the concept of relative significance. Consider for example the stark case between China world biggest country, and Nauru world smallest country. I believe that it would be totally unfair for anyone to argue that the Nauru page be deleted simply because the GDP of Nauru is US$36 million, with an area of 21 sq km, and a population of less then 15,000. Anyone living in a developed country would only laugh at these statistics. But despite the insignificane, the Nauru page exist, which provides and satisfies the curiosity of many readers. I therefore wish to argue that the Malta-Pakistan page be also kept. This is a well cited page, and there is scope for user to add additional content in the future. (Jalal0 (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

all nation states are automatically notable, bilateral relations are not automatically notable. In any case you'll find more coverage of Nauru than Malta-Pakistan relations any dayLibStar (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pardon me for being an inclusionist, but what exactly is the concern when the subject is appropriately refererenced? I see no reason to delete the valuable content this article currently holds; Mar4d (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the reason is simple. A lack of significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. The information that would be valuable is resident embassies, known agreements, known significant trade or investment, significant migration. Can you show evidence of this? LibStar (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also appreciate that Malta is a small country of just 0.5 million people. How can you expect any country to have significant relationship with a small country like Malta. And how can you expect any country to have trade relationship with Malta which runs into billions, when Malta can just provide a customer base of less then 0.5 million people? (Jalal0 (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

so are you admitting there isn't a significant relationship? if there are no significant coverage of actual relations then it fails WP:GNG. Other 100 bilateral articles have been deleted, most of those involving small countries. Malta has notable relations with its neighbours but I fail to see a notable relationship with Pakistan. No evidence has been provided. LibStar (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you also need to know that the word Malta in the Urdu language means orange. I did try to search for additional information relating to Pakistan and Malta (the country). But what I got back was information relating to Pakistan and Malta (the orange). See https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF03051705 for example. The problem is that Malta (the orange) is more popular in Pakistan then Malta (the country). So additional information on this subject is currently limited due to technological limitations in semantic search. (Jalal0 (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well I agreed before just as I do now, that "the relationship may not be "significant", " however my motivation is not based on "significance" but rather on encyclopedic information which this article provide. (Jalal0 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment Just a note, the fact that Air Malta was set up originally with the expertise of Pakistan International Airlines really delves deep into all of this. I find a contradiction in LibStar's argument that the relationship is blatantly insignificant. Mar4d (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you have sources? LibStar (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the 'aviation' section and the Air Malta page itself (which albeit has a one sentence mention). 05:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PIA-Air Malta links More citations - [2], [3], [4]. (Jalal0 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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.