Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Malta relations

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 delete. Jamie^☆S93 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Malta relations

another completely random combination with non resident embassies. the only coverage I could find is on the football field and Eurovision [1]. I would also oppose redirect because there is no relation of note to redirect. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another skeleton bilateral article with non-resident embassies. Tavix | Talk 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another shell of an article with no secondary sources to back up claims of notability not made. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article with non-notable subject due to lack of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. No hope of ever having content unless Belarus and Malta begin real relations. Malta has the population of a small city and they can't all be employed in diplomacy and sent off around the world because there would be no one at home to answer the telephone. Drawn Some (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No prospect of useful content. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another one of these X-Y relations pages. No of them are notable Angria77 ^{Banter, Edits} 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of multiple reliable sources that discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth beyond the trivial.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources adress these relationships in the detail required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. This is just another random country-country relations article with no claim to notability. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:23, 1 June 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.