Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Finland 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. -- User:Docu 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Armenia–Finland relations

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

another random combination, neither country can be bothered accrediting an ambassador preferring to have relations from their own capital cities and not even via Moscow which seems logical. No state visits Most relations happen in Armenia-EU or football context. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that if they haven't accredited ambassadors that's a sign that they don't think their relationship is notable, unless they had ambassadors and withdrew them over a spat or something along those lines. Drawn Some (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no third-party sources (or even first-party!) to indicate even a modicum of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a very pretty way of saying nothing of notabiliy. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including, , , ,  ,     LibStar (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you have not addressed at all how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Almanac entries just have to exist. Just like townships. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * townships are inherently notable but not bilateral relations. why is that at least 60 of these bilateral relations articles have been deleted in recent weeks? your LibStar (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And hundreds of townships were deleted also ... and just as many bilateral relations were kept. About a half-dozen deleted articles are restored every day. What does it mean to you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * townships should follow the following proposed policy Notability (populated places). none of the bilateral relations have been restored as far as I know. you still never demonstrate how each X-Y relations meet WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Townships meet WP:N. These do not. Calling wikipedia something else in an attempt to sway opinion won't change that. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." A Wikipedia pillar trumps over a style guide. The "gazetteer" portion is an entry for each township or country or state, and certainly this is an almanac entry. Factual information on geographic entities. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful argument! I agree.  The only way anyone will ever find these things, is to look for them, so there is no harm to leave them here at all.   D r e a m Focus  00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOHARM LibStar (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Foreign relations of Armenia, which mentions the relationship, and for which this is a useful search term. Rklear (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing for an article to be about. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:43, 8 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. 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 close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * is this a vote for keep? I will let the AfD proceed as normal, there is no valid reason for premature closing. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is notable. Just needs expansionDr. Blofeld (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this unsourced stub about a bilateral relationship of so little interest to the two countries at hand that they don't bother with embassies in each others' capitals. I find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Content available in article establishes notability in combination with additional material available for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For reasons mentioned above in response to Richard. He makes his argument quite nicely.   D r e a m Focus  00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no relations, at least not to speak of. Google and Google News throw up nothing- not even a primary source. A few coincidences of words but nothing that even mentions a relationship.
 * 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.