Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malawi–Spain 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi–Spain relations

Malawi–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article is largely based on a primary source of the Spanish foreign ministry. Very little actual relations, trade is very low at 5 million euros in 2015. And Spain's assistance to Malawi is through multilateral organisations. Virtually no third party coverage of these relations. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is becoming tiresome, just another example of a standalone article for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. I think this makes six nearly-identical, non-encyclopaedic articles of this stripe in a month. As per usual, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (Spanish government press). I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. There is no info particularly worth merging. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Foreign_relations_of_Spain#Bilateral_relations. Per Last1in, I agree that having a lot of these non-notable stubs is kinda annoying but might make sense to just turn these articles into redirects on-sight without AfDs? The content from stubs like this could be helpful in their parent foreign relations article imo, especially given how bare-bone some of those articles could be. Alternatively, a larger discussion could be held on whatever articles are remaining and get them over with in one sweep. Dan the Animator 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My only problem with merging is that we should hope for secondary sources even in the parent articles, and this one (and the others like it) are just paraphrasing foreign ministry press releases. If there is any value, though, I agree that a merge is good. Of course, one of the issues is the merge target. Do we pick the larger country and get accused of Eurocentrism? Or the one with the best press releases (ditto)? Or the most mature article (dit-ditto)? Or have duplicative info in both? Secondary sources will have a focus and that will usually guide us to one article or the other. I expect just such a discussion led folks to metastasise the plague of X+Y stubs. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with Last1in. There is inherent bias in merging to a particular target country. I dont believe that merging is the solution to all these bilateral stubs. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Last1in: True and great points and agree that secondary sources are very helpful for these sorts of articles. In the case of this particular article, I was thinking of merging to Spain's article just because it's the Spanish FM's press releases yk. Per your points above though, I don't see the harm in including the (duplicated) info in Malawi's article too. The only content I think that's valuable from the article at-present is the info about trade under "Economic relations" (which probably could be condensed quite a bit) and the Memorandum sentence under "Cooperation" which is genuinely interesting and valuable information (these sorts of agreements usually take time to negotiate and are noteworthy in themselves for signifying the start of a deeper partnership). Usually the dependence on primary sources is only a notability issue and still is perfectly valid for meeting WP:V (so content-wise, depending on primary refs shouldn't necessarily be an issue for merging imo).

  About secondary & primary sources though, the mere existence of secondary refs can't be used as the litmus for deciding whether to keep an article. In the last bilateral relations stub AfD I took part in, which was for the article on Micronesia–Ukraine_relations, it was similar to this where coverage was limited (article was almost completely about Micronesia's reaction to the Russian invasion) but that one relied exclusively on secondary refs.

  After thinking a bit over what you said though, if it's alright with you and LibStar, I might just start a mass-deletion discussion with all the bilateral stubs with questionable notability. Definitely don't expect all of them to get the same result but at least it'll be a much more efficient way in getting through them and figuring out which ones should be kept, merged, or deleted yk. Probably would be similar in a sense to this discussion I took part in a while back which, while not directly successful, helped pave the way for how to effectively handle the RMs in the topic area. Anyways, sorry for not replying sooner on this and would be interested to hear y'all's thoughts. Cheers, Dan the Animator 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  re: I might just start a mass-deletion discussion with all the bilateral stubs with questionable notability. You now have my undying devotion. I would so very deeply appreciate seeing a once-and-done on this. Thank you! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as violating WP:OR. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2023 (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.