Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Denmark 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. What and how many sources are needed for notability is something that people can in good faith disagree about.  Sandstein  07:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Armenia–Denmark relations

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

neither country has resident embassies, coverage in gnews seems to focus on non resident ambassadors such as. no evidence of significant relations like treaties or major trade deals. yes Denmark gives Armenia foreign aid but so do most Western European countries. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – has clearly not even looked for sources. For instance, this one is entitled "When the Cannons Talk, the Diplomats Must Be Silent": A Danish Diplomat in Constantinople during the Armenian Genocide, and for those who have access to it (and even for those who don't! – though I'm happy to provide copies), it is largely a discussion of this very subject. I'm just on my way out to work now, but I'm going to try and find further references when I get back later. ╟─TreasuryTag► belonger ─╢ 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A further article about the history of Danish foreign aid and its links to Armenia. ╟─TreasuryTag► Speaker ─╢ 09:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An OECD report touching on an agreement between the two governments. ╟─TreasuryTag► international waters ─╢ 09:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not a very long workout. Snotty Wong   chat 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► without portfolio ─╢ 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the OECD source makes one small mention on p.4 hardly indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I to assume that you have no problem with the other ones, then? ╟─TreasuryTag► Tellers' wands ─╢ 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I wonder why you didn't mention that, then, but only chose to pick holes in one. And I also wonder why you have still failed to explain your opposition when asked about it. Hmm... ╟─ Treasury Tag ► without portfolio ─╢ 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * gee, haven't had time to check out your other sources. you're rather pushy aren't you? LibStar (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pushy? Who nominated this article for deletion without carrying out the obvious and essentially required check of searching the subject on Google Scholar? ╟─TreasuryTag► directorate ─╢ 00:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * you expect me to refute every single source you've found. now you want to argue, suggest you WP:CHILL and let the AfD run its course. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I found all those sources within a ten-minute-search of Armenia Denmark relations on Google Scholar. Since you are expected to make basic checks such as that yourself (read WP:BEFORE) – yes, I do expect you to have a good reason for claiming that those sources are invalid. Of course I do. You can't just say, "no their no good lulz," without providing a justification. It's stupid and it's disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag► directorate ─╢ 09:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LibStar: I'm shocked (shocked, I tell you) that you didn't take account of the actions of Danish individuals decades before the modern state of Armenia existed, and a single OECD report that vaguely mentions an agreement between them. I'm sure if we looked harder we'd also find that a couple of Danish tourists have visited Armenia and that an Armenian official went to university in Denmark. We should also contemplate renaming WP:BEFORE to WP:KITCHENSINK. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, you seem to favour sarcasm, attempted wit and borderline incivility over sensible, level-headed discussion, which is unfortunate, given that you have chosen to participate in a collaborative process. ╟─TreasuryTag► sheriff ─╢ 09:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And you, Treasury, seem to favour argumentum ad nauseam -- to the point that you're trying LibStar's patience (just as you recently tried mine). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per TreasuryTag. Racepacket (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the majority of the text was copied from the Danish foreign ministry site. I have removed the copyright violation and notified the editor who did it.--TM 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: lack of resident embassies, lack of significant high-level relations, and lack of relevant secondary source coverage (governmental and OECD sources being primary). I would point out that the activities of individual Danes, long before the modern state of Armenia existed, are hardly the topic of this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OECD is a primary source? Really? Who owns/runs/publishes/controls it, then: the Armenians or the Danes? ╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read WP:PRIMARY. Whether a source is primary, secondary or tertiary is not a matter of ownership. The OECD report is a primary source in the context of this article, because its subject matter is Clean Development Mechanism Project Implementation in Armenia (a set of "political decision[s]", per WP:PRIMARY). A secondary source is needed to interpret what this means for "Armenia–Denmark relations" (particularly as all it says about Denamrk is the very brief and vague "An agreement on cooperation in the field of CDM projects has been entered into between governments of Denmark and Armenia"). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most governmental or quasi-governmental reports are primary sources, as they exist to document political decisions and agreements. There would be some exceptions, where the analytic content outweighed the documentary content -- but they'd be a rarity. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#225DC8">Snotty Wong   gab 17:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not appear to satisfy any of the guidelines for bilateral relations articles at WikiProject International relations. I can't support the existence of a bilateral relations article on two countries that have almost zero interaction, and no resident embassies.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#225DC8">Snotty Wong   gab 17:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you? Oh dear. Perhaps you could, instead, see your way to supporting the existence of a bilateral relations article on two countries whose relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► senator ─╢ 18:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a guideline, a suggestion from a wikiproject, not policy. Outback the koala (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per TreasuryTag's findings. And to the two deletes that complain about not having a resident embassies, be aware that many nations can't afford to or just don't see any reason in this day and age to have them in every single country out there.  You can easily fly over to speak to someone, or use a phone or internet, to communicate if necessary these days.  And one nation giving another nation money to help it, I think its quite notable.  They didn't just pick a nation out at random to toss a bag of money at, but instead had a relationship established with them.   D r e a m Focus  21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "can easily fly over to speak to someone, or use a phone or internet, to communicate if necessary these days" then what is the point on any embassy? most countries are looking to expand their embassies especially in Asia. embassies host trade delegations and open up more formal communication channels. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dream Focus mostly. Treasury is certainly correct here, just look at the sources. Outback the koala (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would suggest that editors that are citing "TreasuryTag's findings" as a reason for a 'keep' !vote take a good hard look at these meagre and/or irrelevant materials, and put thought to how much material in this article can be referenced to them (remembering that material on the involvement of individual Danes to the Armenian genocide belong as a footnote to that article, if anywhere). To date, the answer would a appear to be a sentence at a stretch. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - another fictitious topic, the existence of which has never been noted in the real world by third-party sources, but has instead been concocted by a few Wikipedians who for some reason take pleasure in stuffing these sorts of articles full of trivia as part of a fevered attempt at "rescuing" them. Yes, Danish diplomats can find Armenia on a map, and vice versa. And yes, the richer country has given money to the poorer, but that has zero contextual relevance&mdash;had the donation been discussed in a source on "Armenia-Denmark relations", it would be one thing, but of course it hasn't. And needless to say, the activities of Danish citizens in one bit of the Ottoman Empire has zero bearing on relations between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Armenia. And no, the topic's fictitiousness is not reduced by reduplicating the text on the diaspora, itself of dubious notability and also of negligible bearing on the alleged topic. For the sake of our academic integrity, let's stop going around inventing topics for no good reason, drop the pretence that this topic exists in reality, and delete. - Biruitorul Talk 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if I agreed with you, don't you think deletion is an extreme response compared to option such as merging the article to the two foreign relations pages? There is no need to throw cited and useful information away. Outback the koala (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a redirect and maintaining a little box at Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Denmark. - Biruitorul Talk 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems easy to find evidence of notability. For example, the UN documents a recent treaty between the two countries. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which proves merely that a (rather banal) treaty exists, not that the two have notable relations. - Biruitorul Talk 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Our notability guideline explains that notability is not a matter of absolute importance but of notice in reliable sources. The UN has noticed this treaty and they are reasonably reliable on such matters because this is their business.  The treaty is a formal relationship between the two countries.  We do not yet need a separate article about the treaty but it would form a proper part of this article and so the encyclopedia is built, in accordance with our editing policy.  Deletion would be disruptive to improvement of our coverage this topic and so should not be done. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden is misrepresenting WP:N: it requires reliable INDEPENDENT sources. The article, as it stands, is cited almost exclusively to the Danish and Armenian Foreign Ministries. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrafn misrepresents my comments as the source I provided is independent and has to be added to the article. We are here to discuss the article's potential for improvement, not to make or require these improvements immediately.  The fact that I could so easily turn up documentation of a treaty which had yet to be found or discussed by other editors, indicates that we are at the early stages of work upon this topic.  Our editing policy is to persevere in such cases, keeping the article in mainspace so that editors may find and improve it further.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If Colonel Warden is only talking about the link to the source on the treaty he cited above (not the full body of citations in the article, which was what I was discussing), then HE IS AGAIN MISREPRESENTING WP:N, as that guideline calls for  SUBSTANTIAL [SIGNIFICANT] coverage, and the coverage he cited is ONLY A SINGLE SENTENCE. The fact that Colonel Warden can only turn up a single sentence indicates that the reliably-published independent sources on this subject are very scarce, at best. I would suggest that nothing in WP:IMPERFECT suggests that continued perseverance is required, in the absence of substantial [significant] coverage in reliable independent sources. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would further point out that this source is explicitly simply a "Cumulative Index" of "Treaties and International Agreements Registered or Filed and Recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations", and thus is itself a WP:PRIMARY source. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the primary sources in that case would be the treaty itself and the related discussion papers. The UN account of the matter is secondary, being one step removed from the formation of the treaty and being a summary of same.  As you do not represent the nature of this source correctly, your derivative arguments thus fail. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, an explicit index to a set of primary source documents is no more a secondary source than the index on a phonebook would be -- as it serves exactly the same purpose. It is purely documentary, having no discursive or analystic content -- so it is not a secondary source. (And even if you were right, that does not negate my first point that it is only a single sentence -- not substantial [significant] coverage.) <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, WP:N does not use the word "substantial"; it advises that source coverage should be "significant". Significance is defined to be such that "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.".  We have this in this case and so the source is quite satisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * [References to "substantial" replaced by "significant", to correctly quote WP:N.] You are MISREPRESENTING again. The definition of "Significant" explicitly includes "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." -- and a single sentence is clearly trivial mention. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, even a single sentence may be rich with significance. Triviality arises when the mention is a passing one which is largely irrelevant.  This is not the case here because the treaty is not a passing mention of but is part of the substantive content of the document which exists to record facts of this sort.  We have a corresponding article ourselves - List of treaties - and this seems well-established as valid content. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) By the same argument, "even a single word may be rich with significance" -- argumentum ad absurdum. (ii) The sentence in question establishes no significance, it simply establishes the bare existence (WP:ITEXISTS) of one agreement out of the thousands that the UN indexes each year -- the vast majority of which (including this one) are too insignificant to be listed in List of treaties. Your arguments are getting very very silly -- have a WP:TROUT. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your counterfactual straw men are both silly and irrelevant. The item which I have contributed is not a single sentence but a paragraph in the source and contains several significant facts including the parties, a summary of the content, the place of signing and its date.  The source is a compendium which is constrained by conventional paper document limits and so is correspondingly brief.  We have no such constraints, per policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden: your meritless argumentum ad nauseam long since became as tedious as it has been uncompelling. Tacking on a referencing "Copenhagen, 30 Apr 2003 (I-40904)" does not, except in an excessively tendentious interpretation, turn a single sentence into a paragraph. We all know that you consider everything to be notable, and will say pretty near anything to give even the thinnest appearance that there may be a viable argument (no matter how tenuous and contortionist) for the claim. Continuing such meritless arguments simply further lowers your credibility. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see paragraph which explains the concept. The entry in the source is clearly distinct, being typographically marked out with a new line, a bold heading, a separate reference code &c.  It seems adequate for our purpose in demonstrating that the United Nations has noticed specific relations between these countries. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is a single sentence, 25 word paragraph (excluding the titling and referencing) -- if you want to POINTLESS SPLIT HAIRS. It is only one out of 22 agreements mentioned on that one page, which is only one page out of a 484 page index, making it only one out of approximately 10,000 agreements listed. It is about as "specific" as a single fan at a rock concert, and about as significant as a baboon's bout of flatulence. Colonel Warden: you expressed distress at other editors expressing their contempt for you in blunt terms, I put it to you that it is threads like this that earns that contempt. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly claimed that because the UN-treaty source is "a single sentence, 25 word paragraph" it should not be regarded as significant coverage. So please do this for me: take a look over WP:NOTE, and quote me the section containing the minimum word-count for significant coverage. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► UK EYES ONLY ─╢ 09:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Colonel's apprentice in argumentum ad nauseam returns. I will leave to one side the question of whether I said "a single sentence, 25 word paragraph" only once or "repeatedly", and only point out that a single agreement, out of an index of approximately 10,000 such agreements is NOT "significant coverage". You may rabbit on to your heart's content about "how many angels may dance on a pinhead", but that will not alter this pragmatic, real world conclusion. On your, and Colonel Warden's further and endless tenuous & tendentious claims, I will observe WP:DNFTT. Anything further either of you have to say, you will be speaking only to yourselves. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Baseless accusations of bad-faith trolling are considered personal attacks. As I'm sure you are well aware. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► most serene ─╢ 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the good old Colonel. one treaty or agreement does not equal notable relations, many bilateral articles have been previously deleted despite having one or two treaties. third party significant coverage of relations that are notable is what we are looking for. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your nomination stated that you had found no evidence of treaties and yet when I make a brief search, I soon found one. Your statements lack verisimilitude. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * simply finding one treaty does not equate to notability. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep- as it stands, this article seems to be a bland synthesis of unimportant and run-of-the-mill information. Two countries that have nothing to do with each other nod their heads politely at each other from time to time, and we call this a topic? However, it is reliably sourced. And I think that if we merged it with the more interesting and relevant but utterly sourceless Armenians in Denmark (the reciprocal Danes in Armenia does not exist), we might actually have an article that can stand on its own merits. If this suggestion finds no support, please regard this instead as a delete !vote. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  03:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I attempted to include this information into the article, however because of the sourcing issue you raise, other editors here removed it. The info should be included though. Outback the koala (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt there are many Danes in Armenia: someone from a stable, advanced democracy ranked the least corrupt on Earth with a per-capita GDP among the top 20 has little incentive to move (at least on a permanent basis) to a rather poor, highly corrupt, insalubrious, wretched little dictatorship that's probably going to be invaded by its neighbor in the coming years. - Biruitorul Talk 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: very substantial sources provided. The article just needs more prose; that's not a reason for deletion.  Night w   07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion those of us who want to keep the article should expand it to show viability as a standalone article. It will probably be kept, but expanding articles such as this should be our primary goal, not arguing endlessly here.--TM 04:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: as of 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC), we have in the article 5 citations to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and one to the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Add to this various brief mentions in governmental/OECD/UN primary sources, that have been raised in this AfD. This does not total to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably because a large number of independent sources – including ones from academic journals, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten – have been listed in this discussion but not yet added to the page. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► UK EYES ONLY ─╢ 09:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As nobody cited any such "academic journals" articles (or any other independent secondary sources) relevant to this topic, it is hardly surprising that I have not mentioned them. I also "have conveniently forgotten" the Easter Bunny, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russell's Teapot and who knows what other mythical and/or irrelevant entities. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep leaning towards snowball strength, per TreasuryTag and as the article boasts an original Groubani map. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * having a map in no way advances notability. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2010 (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.