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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that seems to fail WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - India is large enough that its bilateral relations may more often than not be notable, but this particular relationship lacks that notability. Even the Indian government notes that relations have been "friendly and cordial", but says little else. No sources indicate any deeper relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lets just say this is a WP:SNOWBALL and delete it, its just another one of those uninformative fluff articles that serves no purpose. --Pstanton (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please do not use WP:SNOW or WP:SNOWBALL without understanding how it works. You were the second !vote yet you take it upon yourself to misuse policies which often messes up AfDs. Antivenin 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, deployment of Indian troops in Malta is no indication of a notable relationship, neither are bilateral trade treaties or visits by foreign ministers and heads of state. Could there be a blizzard on the way? IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above user has been blocked for abusing multiple accountsDGG (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having searched for notable relations I have been unable to find anything of substance. Trade statistics is basically the only thing I can find, and this is perhaps more suited to an article on trade of both countries, i.e. Trade statistics of India or something similar. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lack of embassies gives an idea. Punkmorten (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per sources and aspects of relationship uncovered by User:Marcusmax at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Asia relations, who I quote: [ Keep India–Malta relations ] "per per this circa 1800's New York Times article detailing the invasion of Malta by the government of India, BBC article on Indians who were arrested my Malta, article detailing buisness relations between two, One of many articles detailing some kind of boat incident and on top of that both countries are former British colonies." Abecedare (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as once again, there's nothing of note here. Of the above given sources, one has to do with relations before either became a modern sovereign nation, one has to do with relations to Indian businessmen, not the government, Indians being arrested in Malta is a criminal matter, not a diplomatic one and a boat accident, again, not really involving government on both sides except as victims might be concerned. The fact that they were both former British colonies makes their relations to the U.K. notable, not to each other. Non-notable on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - hold up real quick, since when do sources mean nothing? Let me do a once over and start attempting a rescue. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated - I have updated the article to the point where it is not like a directory article, work is still needed but it should be good enough for a keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have struck my delete above, and am changing to keep based upon work done by Marcusmax in establishing some notability which can be further expanded. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - what we have here is a juxtaposition of random bits of news that Marcusmax (with all due respect) has decided are notable. We don't have any source that covers the relationship as such. As pointed out by BlueSquadron, what happened in the 1870s and WWII is a subject of Imperial British history, not of "India–Malta relations". And then the rest of the article is basically "they meet, they trade, they seek 'stronger cultural ties'" (sourced in part, I might add, from primary sources, in violation of WP:PSTS) - not really a viable article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many thanks to Marcusmax for tracking down some sources. While it seems that bilateral relations articles have become the great inclusionist-deletionist battle of our times, the fact of the matter is that we do have a neutral, verifiable article on this subject now. Yes, the article is short and imperfect, but that is not the criteria for inclusion. Cool3 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what we have is a hash that violates WP:PSTS (assigning importance to treaties without secondary sources having done so), WP:SYNTH (randomly selecting a pastiche of trivia and deciding that together, it forms a notable whole, without having that validated by secondary sources), and WP:NOR (consigning activities in two parts of the British Empire to the realm of "India–Malta relations"), stringing together bits of information about a subject covered nowhere as such in order to generate the appearance of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I don't see the WP:SYNTH in this article nowhere am I adding a+b to give me c. Perhaps I need some more secondary sources, but in a short period of time it is easier said then done (but I am working on it). Plus ignoring the cultural treaty and looking toward the economics section I have provided a 3rd party source stating a rise of 300% in trade in the past few years. And finally as for the NOR you will have to give an exact example for me to know where the issue lies so it can be corrected. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like many such articles, this breaks with WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yes, the british government moved forces from British India to Malta in the 19th century. This has nothing to do with these two nation's relationship. There is no relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Marcumax has built this into a perfectly acceptable article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:SYNTH, WP:PSTS and WP:NOR problems remain glaring. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have stated above, you have yet to show where the WP:SYNTH is taking place, and an exact instance of the WP:NOR. As for the primary sources, I am working on the issue but keep in mind there are plenty of other refs besides the treaties. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've laid out the problems before, but I'll do so again.
    • The overriding concern is that no single work (let alone multiple works) - no newspaper or magazine article, no section in a book, not to mention an entire book - deals with "India–Malta relations". Thus, the only remaining option, the one you have chosen, is to take disparate bits of information from very different contexts, decide on your own that they form evidence of notability in the India–Malta relations, and put them together. In other words, you're putting together A and B and C to advance the conclusion that an India–Malta relationship deemed worthy of attention by reliable sources exists - but it doesn't.
    • As to specifics: what happened in 1878 was a) very minor and not something we'd ever cover were we not looking for trivia to dump in here b) an internal matter of the British Empire, not a function of India–Malta relations. What happened in WWII is marginally more important, but again an affair of the British Government, and can be far more logically covered in one of myriad other articles: Indian Army (1895–1947), India in World War II, 10th Indian Infantry Division, etc.
    • Footnotes 1, 2, 4 and 8, along with the text that they support, are primary sources and thus, since their importance has not been assessed by secondary sources, cannot be used by us to validate anything.
    • The remaining information on economic ties is essentially trivial and again selected more to fill the article than because we'd ever mention it anywhere else, but if genuinely notable, Economy of Malta can use some expansion.
    • I think I've explained the SYNTH and PSTS problems. To the extent a notable relationship is being derived from this string of trivia, that's also original research, as is the inclusion of pre-independence events that have nothing whatever to do with the purported topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pre-Independence or not two entites can still have relationships that date back before being independent, a perfect example of this is Montenegro and Serbia, or the US colonies and Britain, or France. Perhaps I am a coming an out of the closet inclusionist as my recent trends appear to show, but on Wikipedia we do have room for "some" relations articles if we can find sources for them. Perhaps an article never came out with a title "India–Malta relations" but not trying to cry other stuff exists, but in all honesty it does we have at our disposal many articles that offer facts on economics and political relationships on these countries that can justify a keep. But thanks Biruitorul, for your opinion and I will look into what you have said with urgent need. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That claim is at best iffy, and in the present situation, as I've pointed out, the WWII stuff is far better covered in more relevant articles on the Indian Army during the war. As for the 1878 deployment - yes, it's mentioned here, but as part of a wider article on operations of the Indian Army (1895–1947) - an article that also mentions deployments to Cyprus, Burma, China, Afghanistan, South Africa, Malaysia and Yemen. That article needs further development and the Indian Army's various operations put into their proper context - not one operation of a dozen plucked out of context and mentioned, implausibly, in an article on "India–Malta relations" entirely divorced from a wider discussion of what the Indian Army was, what it was doing and why. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Biruitorul, I am honestly scratching my head over your claim that Marcusmax advocates a new or original conclusion. What claim is that? That India & Malta had contacts & a relationship? He simply set forth the facts which he found, & added no interpretations which lead the reader to novel conclusions. No interpretation about the treaties the 2 countries signed. This is what those acronyms you allude to mean. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • However, he's setting them forth out of context ("here's what was going on in the British Empire in 1878! And here's some agreements these two former British colonies signed!") and without the benefit of a secondary source that deals with the relationship itself, not isolated bits of what we may consider to be notable. Regarding the treaties in particular, we need secondary sources telling us they matter, and matter in the context of this relationship. Otherwise, they're really not worth mentioning, because no secondary sources have deemed them worthy of mention. Compare, say, Jay's Treaty or the Treaty of Portsmouth with the India-Malta Agreement on economic, industrial, scientific and technological cooperation - the first two are meaningful because multiple authorities have bothered to study them; the latter is irrelevant, as no one outside the respective foreign ministries has likely written a word about it.
            • The point I am driving at (and I agree throwing out acronyms can lead to confusion sometimes) is simply that the notability of a relationship is confirmed by scholars or at least newspapers telling us it (it - not random aspects thereof) is notable; not through us selecting bits of what we consider notable information and trying to ascribe notability to the resulting product. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Although your command of alphabet soup is very impressive, I have to question the validity of the acronyms which are being quoted. Often acronym arguments are not challenged in AfDs, which is a shame, because often the acronyms are improperly used.
                WP:PSTS states that we are to use secondary sources. This article only used secondary sources. So this acronym is misued here.
                WP:NOR WP:Synth can you give any examples of original research or synthisis? Other than WP:IINFO, WP:Synth is probably the most misunderstood and misused acronym in a deletion debate.
                RE: "We don't have any source that covers the relationship as such." this is now an invalid argument (see ministry quote below), and I would apprecaite that you strike it.
                Thank you. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have further expanded the article adding a few more secondary sources, including a news report by Press Trust of India, a published study on the historical immigration of Indian traders to Malta, and a book chapter on immigration in Malta that discusses the local Indian community. Note that these are in addition to the secondary sources (New York Times, MaltaMedia and the Economic Times) already added by User:Marcusmax . Abecedare (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abecedare, for your assistance. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Two more sources added to explain the geo-political significance of the Indian troops in Malta in 1878. Abecedare (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the vast improvements by Marcusmax and Abecedare. Though Biruitorul may still think otherwise, the article now looks encyclopedic. Salih (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Salih FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per major improvements by Marcusmax and Abecedare. Ikip (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, please note this source, which was just added to the article from the India Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
  "India's relations with Malta have been strong. Foreign Minister Dr. Frendoin a speech in the Parliament mentioned he wanted to make India a focus area in Malta's foreign policy. PM Frendo visited India in March 2005. The six-day visit was the first high level visit after a gap of 13 years, when the then President Tabone visited India. At present, Malta has an Honorary Consul in Delhi and Mumbai. It is planning to open a Mission in Delhi. The year 2005 is marked by the visit of our Commerce Minister to Malta for CHOGM in November and that of a Parliamentary delegation from West Bengal Legislative Assembly, led by ShriHashim Abdul Halim, Speaker, in August 2005."
  Other than WP:IINFO, WP:Synth is probably the most misunderstood and misused acronym in a deletion debate. Ikip (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - footnotes 1, 5, 7, 8 and 12 are primary sources. Not to sound pedantic, but the Ministry blurb about the relationship (aside from detailing a relationship that, when you peel away the inflated language, is pretty trivial) is a primary source, and thus cannot be used to validate the argument that this relationship has been studied by secondary sources. (Unlike, say, US-Cuba or Britain-France.) That is where the heart of the synthesis lies: in the gathering together of disparate bits that we, as opposed to scholars or journalists, consider evidence of a notable relationship. And it veers into original research when discussing pre-independence events that have nothing to do with India–Malta relations.

Regarding more recent additions: information on Indians in Malta could be included in an Indians in Malta article, since it doesn't directly deal with the title topic (though I agree that if kept, it doesn't make sense to split the article that way). As for what happened in 1878: again, it makes far more sense (even overlooking the fact that there was no Malta to have relations with any India at the time) to cover this as part of a wider article on operations of the Indian Army (1895–1947), rather than pulling one such operation out of context and proclaiming it as evidence of a notable relationship between the two modern-day republics. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry but you do sound incredibly pedantic (overly concerned with minute details or formalisms), and the interpretation of the rules are also incorrect.

This article excedes notability requirements, with several primary and secondary sources.

Original research is research not pulled from books and secondary sources, this is not "original research or original thought" when editors cite books from the period.

The first sentence of WP:SYNTH states: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." There is no sythesis here. Again and again these sources show by themselves, that their is relations with each country. How can you read the "India Ministry of Foreign Affairs" section and state their is no relationship? Your position seems more like WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR then those who have found sources confirming the relation. Again, WP:SYNTH is abused a lot in AfDs, with no one ever bothering to reread what WP:SYNTH actually says. The primary source I provided have been confirmed by secondary sources.

Ikip (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we're just going around in circles (I've already explained the SYNTH problem): but again, the Indian Government is not a valid source for activities of the Indian Government. We need a scholarly or at least journalistic filter to tell us what is and what is not notable about this subject, and so far, nothing has emerged on that front. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/me smacks own face with palm. So now we're at the point where a subject is assumed to lie about itself unless proven otherwise? Whenever someone starts insisting on interpretations of the rules which challenge common sense, it's a sign that either (a) bad-faith wikilawyering (which I haven't seen any other important instances); or (b) an unhealthy obsession over getting one's way in a situation, which is likely to lead to WikiBurnout or being banned. (Neither I would wish on anyone.) Look, Biruitorul, this is simply one article out of a couple dozen of this type which have been nominated for deletion, & most of which will probably be deleted. Even if you are right in this case, keeping this article won't hurt the encyclopedia. Let it go, & move on. -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my points and will be glad to move on. But: I'm not saying the Indian Government isn't trustworthy, only that secondary sources are needed to validate its claims (specifically regarding the relationship) and their notability. Consensus disagrees with me here (or else others haven't investigated my claims closely enough), and that happens - it's something one needs to learn to accept. Also, WP:NOHARM. And could I please prevail upon you to drop dark talk of bans? Let's not use that cudgel unless we have to. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since the WP:AFTER continued improvements made by User:Marcusmax since the article first hit AfD. Good job. Covering the relations between these two countries, including the historical and societal, are emminently worthy of wiki. Keep up the good work! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete There is absolutely nothing notable between the relationship of these two countries to warrant its own article. The relationship does exist and there would of course be references implying this, but if such will be our basis then every country that has a relationship with another country should have an x-y relationship article at Wikipedia. Just imagine how many useless articles would result from that. If we let this one through then a precedent will be established that would allow such a dim prospect to materialize. – Shannon Rose (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As useless as articles on fast-food products, notable only as a result of their mass marketing and rarely for their quality? Your argument would seem to indicate a need for more such relationship articles in a paperless encyclopedia, not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A central discussion is underway concerning bilateral relations articles, they are also mentioned at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) -- in both places I've suggested why these articles might be useful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. certainly has more references than the usual X-Y relations article but the relations are not particularly strong but weakly notable. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Looks like it has more information and is more notable than the typical X-Y article. In addition, I looked over this article two days ago and today it's vastly increased in size and references. Not particularly notable but notable enough to keep.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm not sure that it's either necessary or useful, and I'm pretty sure it's going to languish undeveloped once this AFD is over; but OK, I think it now meets current guidelines for inclusion. Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the third of your basic tenets fail, so do the other two. You operate under the false presumption that these articles are inherently notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In no sense, is that a problem here. -MBHiii (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources indicated by Abecedare alone demonstrate the notability of this topic and passing of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with both countries being members of the Commonwealth, there is a relationship. Moreover, the article meets WP:V due to its refrences. And finally, it is exactly what we find in almanacs and encyclopedias, i.e. bilateral relations is a topic with real-world WP:Notability and one of interest to scholars and think tanks who research this kind of subject, especially concerning a country with a billion inhabitants. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:34, 28 April 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.