Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Portugal 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 to delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Armenia–Portugal relations

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

another random combination. the statement about the businessman in the article ...well I'll let others judge. Google news search shows only a relationship on the football field. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Armenia and Portugul don't have enough relations to warrant an article.--Unionhawk Talk 13:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: The article may have been poorly written, true particularly the second paragraph. But we can always use the chance to improve it rather than deleting the article based on text we don't approve. Country to country relations are a regular feature in all country pages and we have very similar articles like this between all countries that basically contains the established diplomatic relations and status of the ambassadors etc. Usually Armenian - other country relations would also contain whether there is official recognition by that country of the Armenian Genocide... This page contains very relevant information about the establishment of diplomatic relations. It is even more relevant because of the mention of Calouste Gulbenkian. The "businessman" concerned, Calouste Gulbenkian, he is certainly a prominent international Armenian figure with ramifications throughout the world. For Armenians worldwide, mere mention of Calouste Gulbenkian brings associations to Portugal as thousands of Armenians apply for university scholarship at the headquarters of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Thus the writer of that paragraph must have been over-zealous in the way he descrbed impact of Gulbenkian on Portugal and the Armenians. He has also established the Museu Calouste Gulbenkian in Lisbon thius contributing hugely to the Armenian Portuguese relations. So mention of Calouste Gulbenkian is spot on and the article would have been deficient without mentioning him contrary to opinions expressed above.  Anyway I have rephrased the article making further additions to Gulbenkian's notability and suggest keeping the article werldwayd (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Portugal doesn't recognise the Armenian Genocide, and even if it did, we have Recognition of the Armenian Genocide for that; Gulbenkian died 36 years before the modern Armenian state was established, and we already have articles on him and his museum, to which this article can add nothing. I suggest a compromise solution: a Category:Armenia–Portugal relations, where we can put at least the museum, and a Category:Armenian expatriates in Portugal, where Gulbenkian could possibly go. Other than that, there seems to be no potential for expansion. - Biruitorul Talk 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources independent of the subjects discuss this relationship. The bilateral relatonship is of such little importance to the two states that Portugal manages the relationship from Moscow, Russia while Armenia manages its side of the relationship from Rome, Italy. Notability guidelines should not be ignored. And that a potentially notable armenian person, dead over 50 years now, lived for a time in portugal (before the founding of the modern armenian state) says nothing about a bilateral relationship between these two countries. Any notable things he's done should be written about in the article about him.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over 40 other AfDs today. Ikip (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the shoe fits... and a lot of people wear size 10. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  04:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep By werldwayd's well made argument. I'd also like to note, that whether a country establishes an embassy in a country directly or not, is not relevant at all.  They both already have an embassy someplace, and their people can meet there for things.  In the era of modern communications, the only reason to have an embassy in a nation is to handle cases with troublesome tourist from your country, and to house your spies.   D r e a m Focus  03:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * regardless of your embassy arguement, there needs to be significant third party coverage as per WP:GNG of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. The guidelines are just suggestions, not policy.  They change far too often, and are determined by far too few people, to be taken seriously. Basically whoever hangs around and argues the longest, gets to determine what's in a guideline.  You have to use WP:COMMON SENSE in these issues.   D r e a m Focus  03:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the relations don't meet WP:N in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * delete Of all the slew of "bilateral relations" articles, this is one of the weakest indeed. Perhaos we would be better off with a cross-reference 200 by 200 table or so with "x" for each case where countries have some relations? That would cut out a good 4000 or so unlikely-to-ever-be-used articles at least.  When stats show essentially zero views in its existence, I think that the article has been shown to be of no use.  Collect (talk) 11:36, 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. Most of the article is in fact about an Armenian who happened to live in Portugal, which is irrelevant to the topic. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep until there has been some evidence that it is in fact unsourceable, which means examining print as well as online sources for each country involved. DGG (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, how rigorous a search are you expecting? If it's offline back issues of Diário de Coimbra and Չորրորդ Իշխանություն, well, I'd say that's an unusual request for AfD. - Biruitorul Talk 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You do need a reason for keeping, and at least an attempt to show that sourcing is possible. - Biruitorul Talk 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is still oddly written, but it just needs repair and the usual everyday sourcing, not deletion. Portugal appears recognize the Armenian genocide, which is itself notable. Please see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)  However, I can't seem to find anything about that assertion in a quick search. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Recognition of the Armenian Genocide, no, it doesn't recognise it; and anyway, why duplicate content if that's the only notable facet of the relationship? Does this even meet your standards? - Biruitorul Talk 01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article makes no effort to assert notability. That countries exchange representation is a commonplace, and is not, in itself, notable.  The only other fact in the article concerns a wealthy Armenian who lives in Portugal, but no connection between the choice of residence of this private citizen and the diplomatic relations of these two countries is even hinted at.  With that irrelevant fact removed, there go the only two refs in the article, so there's no RS supporting. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:22, 8 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.