Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Greece 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Argentina–Greece relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Argentina. The diaspora group has its own article - Greeks in Argentina. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable intersection of countries. Nothing more to state than the location of embassies, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - At Articles for deletion/Colombia–Greece relations it seemed as if this article was going to be kept, along with many others. What is the rationale behind removing it from that page and putting it up for Afd on separate pages. Although I must admit sources are quite limited for these articles so I will remain neutral . - Marcusmax ( speak ) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was serious protest at their being bundled, so I split them. - Biruitorul Talk 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is clear from here that there is not only a developing relationship but one which the countries regard as important. Naturally, the various aspects need to be followed up to add secondary sources, probably in Greek and Spanish, but that is an editorial matter and a page on a significant relationship should not be deleted meanwhile. Smile a While (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally, press releases from the Greek government about Greece's foreign relations fail WP:GNG, but I welcome further material. - Biruitorul Talk 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is o.k. to use self-published sources for some information if there is no reasonable doubt about authenticity, presumably the case here. But the article should mostly be based on independent sources, and only independent sources can establish notability. As it stands, this one is marginal. Just one deputy-minister meeting noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per press release above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, is WP:GNG just being thrown out the window? Sources must be independent of the subject - this "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." - Biruitorul Talk 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets my standards for notability & inclusion: full ambassadors & embassies, 20 treaties and accords (I can read the Spanish text), large emmigre community, etc. Needs more sources. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That it does. Let's unpack this. Embassies are of course documented at Diplomatic missions of Greece & Argentina. The accords are primary sources and their relevance not validated by WP:PSTS. The emigre community has its own article. Anything else? Any evidence an actual article could be written on this, or are we keeping just for the sake of it? - Biruitorul Talk 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment material duplicated elsewhere in Wikipedia has never been a reason for deleting. Biographical information on whoever the current president is, appears in dozens if not hundreds of articles. The GDP of the US is defined and discussed in over a dozen economic articles, charts, and tables. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I don't like this mass deletion of country relations articles, as the nominators are not putting in enough effort into improving rather than deleting. Yet, aside from sport and official press releases about trade, the best I can find is that Christina Onassis had dual citizenship and died in Argentina... there must be better sources out there. Did the nominator do the courtesy of telling Wikiprojects Greece and Argentina about this AfD? Fences and windows (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:RS, as does the above press release. Also, we're not a directory. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But we are an almanac-like reference work, and this is an almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite... please show me where, anywhere, on wikipedia that it says this is an almanac. I could use a giggle this morning. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A rose by any other name .... Wikipedia is a "reference work" not an encyclopedia. My Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't contain charts, graphs and pages of statistics and rankings, but my almanac does. My EB doesn't list every city in the world, yet both my gazetteer and atlas do. My EB doesn't contain plot summaries for movies and TV shows, yet my Leonard Maltin guide does. Wikipedia expanded from being a traditional encyclopedia, and became a hybrid "reference work" many years ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for your definition, I asked you to point out where this was called an almanac, which you failed to do. Think of it what you will in your own mind but don't try and foist that opinion on the rest of us. This article still fails all standards for inclusion. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

--Yannismarou (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.
 * OK, I'll assume you are a newbie here and try to help you get started with understanding Wikipedia. Five_pillars says in the very first line: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Did you "[get your] giggle this morning", or laugh so hard you became incontinent? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While tacit, it is still both accurate and true. Can you show me where it says that almanac entries are banned from Wikipedia? Tonwnship entries only require that they exist, and only used primary census data when they were created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "almanac" argument is nothing but a red herring. Even if we assume that Wikipedia, as a unique reference work, should include almanac-type entries, one still needs to establish the notability of the specific entry under consideration to decide whether it should be included or not.  There are currently about 193 nations in the world, so unless you are asserting that the 37,056 articles on bilateral relations between them are automatically notable, some evidence needs to be presented that each specific relationship is notable enough to warrant an article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete since all the primary sourced puff fails to establish that this relationship is a notable topic, and due to my own failure to find multiple reliable sources that discuss this relationsihp in a way that might help to make it notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Are "Argentina-Greece" relations the same thing as "Greece-Argentina" relations? Maybe we should have both article just to be sure who's on top? Per above. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe its in alphabetical order.  D r e a m Focus  17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This references looks fine to me.  D r e a m Focus  17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As described by User:Marcusmax here, "According to WP:PG, "If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, then the policy should in most cases take precedence over the guideline." this means that in some (but not all) cases WP:GNG may be outweighed by WP:V." The two countries clearly have developed relations, so deleting just because there currently is not a secondary source seems a little silly. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:PRIMARY and my previous comments pointed out by Grk1011 I bode keep, nice re-write. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to continuing improvements. In any event, looking up the foreign relations of countries is a legitimate topic to look up in an almanac or encyclopedia.  Even if the article is not all that long, somehow or other I can justifiably see people come here to see "Hey, does Argentina and Greece have any relations"?  Well, this article provides an answer.  And after all, that's who academic research starts.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject itself is notable. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles. PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This decision by Ikip to merge all bilateral relations article is unilateral, there is no consensus. Fences and windows (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.