Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Chile 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenia–Chile relations

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

Article prodded and restored. It should be deleted because the two countries have essentially zero historic or cultural ties (and no geographic ones), no embassies, and the fact that Chile recognises the Armenian Genocide is duly noted at Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Also, the Sassounian article is an opinion piece and not really a reliable source. Finally, bilateral relations are not inherently notable; see e.g. Articles for deletion/Colombia–Estonia relations. Biruitorul Talk 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete article does not establish why this relationship is notable. Gigs (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Whilst the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide would mean it would be deleted (as it can be covered elsewhere), the fact that Armenians living in Chile can have Chilean citizenship without having to renounce their Armenian status sways it to keep for me. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  09:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: if notable, couldn't they be covered at Demographics of Chile, or at a new Armenians in Chile? That's usually standard practice for expatriate/immigrant communities, who don't necessarily impact relations between their "host" and "parent" country (though they often do). - Biruitorul Talk 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no assertion of this topic's notability in the context of history, only that it should be notable based on the title. The scant information found in this article can be merged to the two "Foreign relations of..." articles in the "See also" section to create more exhaustive and coherent articles there. The two "references" aren't even referenced in the text, and only point to very recent news articles when wikipedia is not the news. -- BlueSquadron Raven  14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established the usual way. I see no argument presented for why we need a much higher inclusion standard here than is the norm.  That the article can't be redirected to a single, other article shows pretty clearly why a merge is inappropriate.  Wily D  14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blindly pointing to WP:N is not the best argument. Also, why have three articles saying the same thing when you can have less? Wikipedia may not be paper but that's no excuse not to use a little prudence in editing for sake of clarity, context and ease of searching. -- BlueSquadron Raven  14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N is the usual standard for inclusion. Unless there is some reason to believe this is an exceptional case, why not follow the usual, default practice? Additionally, WP:N has longstanding acceptence - what we're sampling here is the opinions of a few people, while WP:N represents the collective opinions of far more people - it's much easier to let a handful of people discuss each issue while referencing the general thoughts than try to get everyone to participate in every discussion (or conversely, let only the handful who show up decide things - something that's a constant problem for all policies, be they NOR, NPOV or N - but we do the best we can). Wily D  14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Organisation of information for pedagogical purposes is not an easy thing, but we serve as a better reference by not breaking up a single topic into pieces and scattering it everywhere - this is a standard practice. Newspapers have "sports" sections, and "economic" sections and so forth for eaiser perusal. Wily D  14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think we're trying to break information up? In every AfD on these such articles I haven't seen a single argument against integrating it into the existing "Foreign relations" articles that you choose to ignore, which predate these mass-produced bilateral articles by years and would benefit from the inclusion of such properly cited material? I'm not arguing for the removal of any information, in fact I'm arguing against the very thing you just argued against: the breakup of a topic! Now answer us this: Why does this information warrant its own separate article based solely on what is in the article rather than inclusion in Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Chile? -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a merger really a good idea? Not only is it going to produce duplicate information (the same in both Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Chile), but it is also going to turn these articles into gigantic lists, like Gun politics in the United States (by state), which is far from well-rounded and easily navigable. —Admiral Norton (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient content, though just  barely. DGG (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason to delete, as the article obviously has enough content to move away from the stub status if someone has time and effort. —Admiral Norton (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Very little content and few cited reasons for notability but it still has potential for expansion.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources not sufficient to meet WP:N. Both are unreliable, only cover Chile's recognition of the Armenian Genocide (which occurred while Armenia was part of the Ottoman Empire and anything but an independent country), and say next to nothing about the relationship between the two countries. This source is from an unreliable source which states that it is the "full-fledged organ of the ARF" (whatever it is) at and the Spanish-language source is also unreliable as its a Armenian Genocide awareness group rather than a news source and the content in the reference is basically a press release on an Armenian delegation visiting Chile to thank it for recognising the Genocide once it is translated into English. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topics such as this can be helpful when doing certain types of research. The only other option is to put text that would go under such a heading into the topics of both countries - which inevitably leads to one-sided viewpoints, rather than an ability to have a topic which is covering the issue properly. As for not having embassies, the information on which embassy is used for diplomatic relations is, in itself, indicative and helpful. --87.115.1.175 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That argument is basically WP:ITSUSEFUL Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 9 April 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.