Talk:Count of Malta

I don't understand what is said in the proposed deletion rationale. It says the "pertinent" information is included in Kingdom of Sicily: where? I don't see the list of counts there. And the "unimproved in two years" is not an adequate reason for any deletion of this sort of factual listing. I think, if there is nothing more to be said, it amounts to a comment that this article should be merged (which might not be a good idea). Charles Matthews (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"In 1530, in an effort to protect Rome from Ottoman invasion from the south, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, as Charles I of Spain, gave the Islands of Malta and Gozo to the Knights Hospitaller in perpetual fiefdom, in exchange for an annual fee of two (one for the emperor and one for the viceroy of Sicily) Maltese falcons, which they were to send on All Souls' Day to the Viceroy of Sicily. The Maltese Islands had formed part of the Duchy, and later the Kingdom of Sicily, since 1127. The feudal relationship between Malta and the Kingdom of Sicily was continued throughout the rule of the Knights, until Malta was conquered by Napoleon, in 1798." As far as the list of counts go, that has never been sourced (with maintenance tags going back a year and half), and the person who put those in, User talk:Cradashj, is under indef block for sockpuppetry ... a circumstance we find altogether too often when it comes to articles concerning Maltese aristocracy.  RGTraynor  14:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if your concern is with referencing, then why put the stuff about all the content being in the other article? It isn't. If you think the content of this article is not credible as such, why not make that the concern? The issue isn't therefore about forking, but verifiability, and if that is what you are saying, it would be much clearer just to say so. I wanted to ask what this was about, before taking down the PROD tag, because once that is done, the tag cannot be replaced. If the real point is that this is a historical list that is unsourced, I see the issue, but there are numerous lists on the site without sources. Since most of the names are linked, where does the issue lie? Is the title in some sense of questionable status? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the prod having been removed, it's a moot point, but I'm removing the unsourced material forthwith. If DGG believes it to be sourceable, I encourage him to do so.  RGTraynor  22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable outcome. There were apparently problems with the listing as given (as I found with a little research). Charles Matthews (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)