Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese–Turkish relations

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Sources have now been added. I'm also moving this to Malta–Turkey relations to comply with bilateral naming conventions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese–Turkish relations

edit
Maltese–Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

neither country can be bothered with a resident embassy, and there is a distinct lack of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral from my check of the first 60 in this search. yes they have signed an agreement on combatting crime and terrorism but most countries want to stop that. they also have the usual Agreement of Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments and a Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the Political Consultative Mechanism . and if you want to barrel scrape, they played a football match in 2007, which I know of at least 1 editor who would love to include this. LibStar (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no significant non-trivial coverage of relations between Turkey and Malta in independent reliable sources fo the topic of the article fails WP:NOTE. I'm sure someone will bring up historical interaction between the Knights of Malta and the Ottoman Empire but to be clear, those are not the same as Malta and Turkey, although an article on that topic would be very interesting. Drawn Some (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have lots of geographical and cultural things in common. Relations between Malta and Turkey were established during the Ottoman Empire and have historical background. For instance, last Ottoman Sultan left Istanbul during the WWI and went to Malta. Also Turkish MFA have a page about the relations with Malta, which shows us how notable these relations.--Turkish Flame ☎ 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a Foreign affairs website is a primary source, WP:N requires third party coverage. if it so important to Turkey, why don't they have an embassy in Malta? LibStar (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because Turkey's counsellor to Rome does double duty as ambassador to Malta, according to a news article on Turkey-Malta relations that it took me 10 seconds to find? [1] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes but resident ambassadors are a better indicator of an actual nation's interest in another country. out of the 300+ bilateral articles that have been deletion, most have had no resident ambassadors. although I will say this does not mean automatic deletion. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is a guideline to which exceptions can be made. The reason for third-party sources is to prevent companies and individuals, for example, from using their own promotional websites as sources. However, I see government sites as being in a different category; in my view government websites can be taken as authoritative sources for their government's policies. TerriersFan (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two closely located countries. As expected they have many relations, & more will be found. Looking at the first 60 of a g news search that returned 2630 is very careless searching. And limiting it to after 1960 is not right either--let alone for material going back before there were newspapers in G news. DGG (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below

  • Two closely located countries is not a criterion
  • using a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument is not really going to stick. 827 hits for Guatemala Bhutan does not prove notable relations.
  • it's careless to !vote keep without actually providing examples of significant third party coverage, look at my search and see how the vast majority is multilateral and trivial coverage. I will reconsider my nomination once you provide 15 articles of non trivial independent coverage. I struggled yesterday to find 15 for Lithuania–Sweden relations (which is clearly notable). LibStar (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15? The GNG is usually interpreted as 2 of more. That's a change of almost an order of magnitude. Good way to produce a very much more compact encyclopedia. If deletion can on ly be justified by raising the bar 7 X higher than what we usually do.... Ghits are not a reason for keeping--but this is not G but GNews, with a very different standard for inclusion, where--unlike G-- at least some of the hits usually turn out to be relevant and significant. DGG (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please provide actual examples of bilateral relations. does my Guatemala Bhutan search prove that they have notable relations? LibStar (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:DGG. The nominater always nominates articles for deletion after a Google search. He nominated Belgian–Turkish relations for deletion because he couldn't find anything except a football match between Belgium and Turkey. But I searched the MFA's website and expanded the article. This shows us that Google search is not enough for nominating an article for deletion. --Turkish Flame ☎ 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a Foreign affairs website is a primary source, WP:N requires third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
simply being Mediterranean nations is not a criterion. Your !vote has not addressed in any way how this article meets WP:N.LibStar (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which sources? you have provided none, and the article so far has none except a primary source. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary for articles to be notable. It is necessary for article topics to be notable. Sounds like your beef is that the article fails WP:RS, not WP:N. Except it doesn't, unless you want to call a government website an unreliable source. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you need WP:RS to establish notability. a govt website is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like we're talking about a MySpace page here. Anyway, it's moot: go look at the article now, now that someone's gone and Googled the information that you said doesn't exist, and tell us how much better the article is now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
precedent has shown in the over 300 of bilateral deleted articles that the existence of government website is not enough...it needs significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - flag article for rescue. How is any two-countries-relations article notable, and/or what is the cutoff criterion? I'm certain there are sources available that can be used to build this article up. As for the article meeting WP:N - any international relations between any 2 countries will be notable to citizens of those 2 countries, and thus by the spirit of WP:BIAS and WP:IMBALANCE such a subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now, at the same time, the article presently is in bad need of rescue. So let's clean it up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common sense, raw ghits, gnews hits indicates there should be significant coverage.The problem is in narrowing search to eliminate dross. Added some articles in economic relations. Was also an extradition agreement for a 1998 murder suspect, stuff on football etc at gnews.John Z (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no independent coverage of the topic shown as a reference, and therefore this fails WP:GNG. What we have here is a list of individual events that happen to involve both countries. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh - anyone read any history? How about Siege of Malta (1565)? That sounds like Turkey-Malta relations to me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and well covered in that article. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As there are other instances of bilateral relations in some other news sources we've found, I think this shows that Turkey-Malta relations are notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some search tips. Rather than just plugging "turkey malta" into a search engine and skimming the first page, try focussed searches using techniques like "intitle". ((intitle:malta OR intitle:maltese) AND (turkey OR turkish)) OR ((intitle:turkey OR intitle:turkey) AND (malta OR maltese)) gives 650 hits in Google News,[2] and sifting through those hits is a lot more likely to give useful information about their relationship. Fences&Windows 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
didn't you read my nomination, I looked at the first 60 results not just the first page. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the off-hand comment, it was intending to characterise a common approach rather than your specific behaviour. I hope you'll take my advice on making a better focussed search, as the search you refer to included Italy, Cyprus and Greece as search terms, which is a good way to find articles that don't focus on this particular relationship. Fences&Windows 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as the search you refer to included Italy, Cyprus and Greece as search terms again you misread my original nomination, I excluded these countries in the search, please take care in reading nominations before criticising in future, thanks. LibStar (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that, thanks. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1565 battle still smarts in Turkey, so don't dismiss history too much. See [3]: "It was hard for such a proud people as the Turks to accept defeat against such a small island. Turkish tourists to Malta, upon seeing the memorials to the siege, have stated that there is a Turkish phrase, "Malta yok", that is, "Malta doesn't exist". A fleet did indeed sail for Malta, they say, but it could not find the island and had to turn back." I think the author is mixing his invasion attempts:[4], but the Turks obviously still remember their unhappy relations with Malta 400+ years ago. Fences&Windows 19:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I just went back to the article to add some info, but found it had already been added. In fact, I'd suggest everyone go back and look at the article now - it's much better sourced, and has much more content backed by non-trivial third-party coverage. Personally, I think this AfD now falls under WP:SNOWBALL and should be closed. I'd also suggest conscientious and open-minded google-searching before AfDing any more "international relations" articles, unless of course Wikipedia decides the entire category of such articles is non-notable for some reason (which I think would violate WP:N). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the entire category is not all non notable, some are indeed notable but not all. I can tell you most of the bilateral articles I've nominated have been deleted, so whilst in cases like this sources are found, in most cases, significant additional reliable sources are not found. LibStar (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2009 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maltese–Turkish_relations&oldid=1140138149"