Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Portugal 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 keep. Consensus here indicates that the topic is sufficiently notable to justify inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Portugal relations

simply having embassies or being members of the EU does not grant automatic notability. I've checked the first 70 results of this gnews search and almost all is multilateral. the fact they played a football match last year does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and handle in the usual way per the See Also section here. JJL (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which section? LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is to say, handle via the Foreign Relations of X precedent, as in the entries listed under "See Also" in the article. JJL (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inadequately researched nomination. Malta and Portugal bilateral relations exist and are verifiable, through bilateral agrements,[1] diplomatic trade ties, [2], presidential visits [3], and international business cooperation [4]. Of course, they also have embassies in each others' countries and historic relations these two countries are substantial. For example, "(o)n 19 September 1798, two weeks after the popular revolt against the French, the Portuguese fleet in the Mediterranean came to the relief of Malta. It was under the command of Admiral Domingos Xavier de Lima Pinto Guedes (1765- 1802), 7th Marquis de Nisa, who blockaded and laid siege to the French, and landed a contingent to help the Maltese patriots. The Portuguese admiral gave the Maltese 500 muskets while two of his officers came ashore to advise them on the best location for their trenches and posts facing Valletta and Cottonera." [5]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cdogsimmons. They are both coastal European nations. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when has "coastal European nations" become a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

since people with a basic knowledge of European history realised that Portugal was a major naval power for many centuries and that Malta commanded the sea route from Portugal to the eastern Mediterranean. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems more encyclopedic than most such "X-Y" article of the sort seen at AFD. More sources needed to show notability, though. Edison (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and reliable if the material found is actually added to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly enough material to support notability. unfortunately, these articles were made in such an inadequate way that they have needed much subsequent work. But a look at the geography and a knowledge of Mediterranean history would indicate a very hgih likelihood that these two countries would have had notable relations--as they do. DGG (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relations were notable in 1751, and notability does not expire. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cdog, Norton, Bridger, DGG Edison (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. There are enough sources to just establish notability. I am not sure how relevant the knightly order is. For the modern states, this content may at least give a student a start. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:34, 8 August 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.