Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Holy See 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. The discussion indicates the clear availability of sources, and an excess of articles on this topic is not a grounds for deletion. If the number of articles is excessive, I suggest starting a merge discussion on the relevant talkpages Fritzpoll (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Argentina–Holy See relations

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

This article had been prodded by, as part of a massive spree of similar articles created by. Because this article involves the relations between the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and a large and important Catholic country, I feel that a closer look at the pros and cons is warranted. One example of recent tensions between Argentina and the Holy See involves Richard Williamson, the Holocaust-denying bishop whose excommunication Pope Benedict XVI wanted to lift. This is a procedural nomination, no opinion. Aecis·(away) talk 00:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Delete - we have Papal mediation in the Beagle conflict, List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy, Abortion in Argentina, Roman Catholicism in Argentina, Church-state relations in Argentina, List of diplomatic missions in Argentina and, linking it all together, Category:Roman Catholic Church in Argentina. There's really no need for a stub covering the same ground yet again. - Biruitorul Talk 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note for clarity: Before this nomination, the prod tag had been removed by, with the edit summary "bilateral relations are generally notable". Aecis·(away) talk 00:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations, the findings were inconclusive about the general case. Others might disagree - but in general, proding is a bad way to go. Many highly notable bilateral relations were in the mass nominating, in addition to some which might be unnotable. The general conclusion in Argentina-Singapore that I saw was that if countries exchange embassies, their bilateral relations are almost certainly notable. If not, harder to say. Do I necessarily think 99.99% are? Probably not. But for larger, more internationally active countries, or those with other bonds, usually. Argentina-Vatican should be a snap to establish notability. Cayman Islands-Vanatu relations would no doubt be more of a challenge. Wily D 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * . It's very easy to find a variety of sources covering many aspects of Argentina's relationship with the Vatican, establishing notability via WP:N, and that it's not a single issue relation or whatnot either. Wily D 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This looks like a high quality stub/start. The subject matter, though obscure, appears to me to be notable. The article speaks to the subject well. The external links are useful. I appreciate this is something of a canary in a cage AfD for the many bilateral relations articles created ... is this is their standard then I don't see a problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What would be interesting to know is why you feel we should ignore the standard of WP:N and develop a special standard for these articles? Wily D 01:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what we call a loaded question. To the extent relations between Argentina and the Holy See have notability, they're amply covered in the above-mentioned articles. That I want this article deleted, and notable information in the other articles kept, in no way implies a belief on my part that WP:N should be "ignored". - Biruitorul Talk 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a loaded question, but that's only because the argument you're advancing is patently absurd. History of Canada + Geography of Canada + Parliament of Canada does not mean we should vote to delete Canada.  That many sub-aspects of a topic are notable is a good sign that the article itself is worthwhile. Wily D  03:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, there's nothing "patently absurd" about saying we already cover the topic in much greater depth in about half a dozen other articles and really can live without a three-line hack job by someone who doesn't know English and is very close to being banned for the tons of similar garbage he's been spewing out! And of course, your Canada example is what we know as a straw man. We can and do cover aspects of bilateral relations very well (as we did until February 19) without a single article on them (some "article" this is, anyway); we cannot do so for countries. - Biruitorul Talk 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is patently absurd. We have a hard working diligent editor who has recognised that we have a disorganised jumble of information on highly notable topics that need to be organised better to make Wikipedia a quality reference work who is being attacked for it, and transparently notable articles being attacked as well. This article meets WP:N with more quality, independent sources available to it than most others around here.  User:Plumoyr has contributed more to Wikipedia than I'm ever likely to, something I can respect (at least, in context).  The whole situation boggles the mind.  The Canada example is not a red herring - it illustrates the absurdity of the argument.  While notability is not inhereted down, if many of your sub-topics are notable, you are too.  Wily D  05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you disagree with my perspective, but calling "patently absurd" the notion that stuff like this should be deleted, given that it's amply covered in far more meaningful fashion elsewhere, is out of place. I don't want to demonize Groubani/Plumoyr (a confirmed sockpuppeteer, by the way), but he's not a saint, either, which you seem to be making him out to be. If his hundreds and hundreds of articles were meaningful (you know, like more than three sentences), if they looked like France–Thailand relations, then you'd have a point. But "diligence" and "hard work" in creating junk is meaningless. If someone "diligently" broke rocks into pieces for a living, would that really be a praiseworthy endeavour? And we really can't tell anything about his motives, given his refusal to communicate with us: maybe he's just bored.
 * Breaking rocks into pieces is an important part of roadbuilding, so it may well be praiseworthy. Should I, as a Wikipedia, praise the person of good intentions who lowers the quality of the product, or her or high intentions which raises it?  The thing to have in mind is the product, at the end of the day articles on these topics make Wikipedia a much more useful reference (though they obviously need expansion). Wily D  13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, no they don't (Diplomatic missions of ... articles can do the job just fine); second, meaningful expansion on these topics is often well-nigh impossible (Bulgaria–Sudan relations, Malaysia–Serbia relations, Malta–Mongolia relations, and so on). - Biruitorul Talk 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the high overlap between this and Roman Catholicism in Argentina, the Canada analogy fails. We're dealing with a content fork here. - Biruitorul Talk 07:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I think this reference covers material that's really inappropriate for Catholocism in Argentina.  Obviously the two topics are related, but two significant yet entwined topics doesn't mean we should aim to wipe out content and inhibit growth (which merging does). Wily D  13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not like we didn't have an actual article on the Papal mediation in the Beagle conflict... - Biruitorul Talk 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Could this be merged with Roman Catholicism in Argentina?  Grsz 11  02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, or Church-state relations in Argentina. Having a third article on basically the same theme is excessive. - Biruitorul Talk 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When you have many possible merge targets, it's usually a sign that the main topic is notable, and should not be merged into the sub-topics. Merges into this would make more sense (but still be silly, there's easily enough content here to fill many articles). Wily D  03:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or not: we already mention each fact in the article elsewhere, so there's really no compelling reason to keep it, and any of those will do as a merge target. - Biruitorul Talk 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, we are trying to create a reference work that organises information. Wily D 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "organized" in this type of informational flood. It is the exact opposite. These articles shift focus and create confusion about where to place the info, and are simply redundant to several pages. Redundant, not sub-topics: they are not fragments of a subject, they are mirrors of two subject, and their only future is in beating around the bush. Dahn (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Roman Catholicism in Argentina or similar; there's no need for a stand-alone article on so marginal a topic, and it could always be split out if enough material can be gathered and someone takes an interest in writing the article (as opposed to spamming pointless stubs). Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say that these articles fall within the almanac-like part of Wikipedia as a reference work. Having a separate article lets it be accessed from both articles in the relationship. The same information can be pasted into two larger articles on the two countries and would be harder to find. It is better to have one small one accessed from both. It really isn't an article on Roman Catholicism, it is an article on diplomacy. It would be like merging an article on Utah history into an article on Mormonism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Roman Catholicism in Argentina: these articles go around in circles, and nothing substantial is ever achieved. Since there is no (and will never be any) significant difference between the topics discussed, since the info gets inevitably forked or organized chaotically, and since no article is at a level where it really needs splits (even if it were, they would need to fit in with each other, whereas these articles evolve in parallel words). I object to the very concept of bilateral relations articles, but whereas I could be persuaded some should exist as splinters from fully-developed articles, this one is just someone's game of crisscross. Dahn (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Quality stub, agree it fits in to our almanac-like content. Inherently notable. -- M  ask?  06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if notable, how do you foresee this and Roman Catholicism in Argentina evolving into two discrete, fully-developed articles? Might it not make more sense to treat the topic under a single heading? - Biruitorul Talk 07:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite easily. The Holy See functions as a country, and works in a bi-lateral relations article. Particular aspects of Roman Catholicism that were important to the history of Argentina, or information about its history in the country would go in the religion article. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the two would be mirrors. -- M  ask?  07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I look forward to the day when that happens. I'm not confident it will, but I suppose we'll see. - Biruitorul Talk 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There's a lot of overlap in coverage between this and Roman Catholicism in Argentina, and as the articles stand right now they probably could be merged. Having said that, similar articles such as Holy See – United States relations have more information in regards to the history of relations between the countries (or whatever the Holy See is considered) which probably wouldn't work so well in Roman Catholicism in the United States. Thus, I'm willing to give it a chance to expand. At any rate, it shouldn't be deleted. BryanG (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, same as BryanG. ADM (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the rare examples where those seemingly whimsical bilateral relations articles actually covers relevant territory, as witnessed by the article's references of Pope John Paul II's rocky relationship with the Argentine leaders. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Into Roman Catholicism in Argentina. I have no doubt that it's possible to write an article long on that topic enough that spinouts are necesarry.  But currently there is no real argument for keeping the two seperate.  Taemyr (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Above and beyond the likely inherent notability of bilateral relations between sovereign states, this article provides multiple reliabel and verifiable sources supporting details of events that demonstrate a meaningful connection between the two. Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dahn.  Grsz 11  03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "You can't nominate something without having a reason. There is no such thing is a procedural nomination.  And I see references to notable major newspapers.  You judge the article, not the person who created it.  I see nothing wrong with this article, it meeting all requirements for notability.   D r e a m Focus  17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read my nom? Did you read why I decided to take this to AFD? Because I felt that it needed more discussion than a simple prod tag. That's the only reason. I don't care either way about the article, I care about the process. And in this case I felt an AFD was a better process than prod. And the discussion I favoured is happening right here. Believe it or not, but a procedural nomination is very well possible. Aecis·(away) talk 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The newspaper references generally refer to Papal mediation in the Beagle conflict and the pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II, on which we already have articles. - Biruitorul Talk 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another article about the relations of a non-notable intersection of countries. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep bilateral relations are notable & encyclopedic; especially in this case where there are lots of interaction between the Vatican and Argentina. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a quality, enclopedic and well sourced stub and tag for expansion. Well covered by sources showing WP:N and no need for it to remain a stub if it can be improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:39, 3 March 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.