Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Portugal relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After reviewing the discussion, I find broad and reasonable disagreement on the tenability of the article. Issues such as significance of coverage and inherence of notability can prove subjective and difficult, as is reflected by this debate. Skomorokh  04:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Armenia–Portugal relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

arguments for keep last time didn't back up with comprehensive third party coverage. neither country has a resident ambassador. article largely hinges on 3 sources and Calouste Gulbenkian who has its own article. it appears most of their relations are on the football field. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the countries plainly have significant relations and the better way forward is to continue the sourcing and development of the page. TerriersFan (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * really? what do you define as significant? I can't find evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Im content with the references for now, although I might look for a few more to add in later. Not every relationship has to be amazing, and gigantic indeed this relationship is subtle but it is still an important part of worldwide foreign policy (Of course that is just my opinion). Plus it is a nice almanac article which is part of WP:5P. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentThere is an issues with source here. I thinik a few more mainstream third parties would be usefull.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - as absurd as last time. As pointed out already, Calouste Gulbenkian and two institutions related to him already have articles. Moreover, during Gulbenkian's stay in Lisbon (1942-55), there was no Armenian state (that would only come in 1991), so ipso facto he could have had nothing to do with "Armenia-Portugal relations". (And even if there had been an Armenia back then, since when do wealthy expatriates count as "relations"? Would we mention Mohamed Al-Fayed at Egypt–United Kingdom relations, or do we mention Abdul Razzak Yaqoob at Pakistan – United Arab Emirates relations?) And no, neither the fact that a few Portuguese politicians visited Armenia for a couple of days in 2001, eliciting supportive remarks from Armenian leaders, nor the fact that the Armenian ambassador once held a conversation with a Portuguese legislator, in any way validate this topic. These are items of news, and rather trivial ones at that, which we would never normally pick up outside this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul Talk 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both Armenia and Portugal have articles too, does that mean they can't be mentioned in other articles? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You could look at it from the opposite angle, too. For example, our article on Bill Clinton mentions that he plays the saxophone, and there's no shortage of news articles that also mention this. Should we start Bill Clinton's saxophone skills? Yilloslime T C  23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A reduction to absurdity is fun to write and fun to read, but doesn't add anything useful to the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So why do you keep making such arguments? I mean really, what is your comment about not mentioning Armenia and Portugal in other articles if it's not reductio ad absurdum? My point with the above comment is that some topics are best covered in stand alone articles, and others--even when notable enough for their own articles--are best covered in parent articles. The locations of diplomatic missions of Armenia and Portugal are best covered in Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Portugal, respectively, and Calouste Gulbenkian is best discussed in Calouste Gulbenkian. There's no valued added by synthesizing these disparate factoids into article supposedly about the relations between Armenia and Portugal. Yilloslime T C  07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL to use a reductio ad absurdum and then hypocritically complain about someone else using one, whilst at the same time declaring they're "fun to write and fun to read, but [ don't add anything useful to the debate"] - is the most colossal case of shooting oneself in the foot I've ever seen! Ryan 4314   (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The countries plainly do not have significant relations. As there are no reliable third party sources that discuss this topic any sort of depth or detail, we should not have an article about it. Yilloslime T C  21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I were to rank all the permutations of relations this wouldn't rank on top, but the references seem fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The bilateral relationship doesn't appear to extend beyond the occasional exchange of the usual compliments given to visiting delegations and the references don't cover the bilateral relationship in any depth. Moreover, the 'history' section is about a single individual's business and charity interests, not the relationship between the countries. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. Two independent countries that are represented diplomatically. Not relevant that there are no embassies.sulmues Talk--Sulmues 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Two independent countries that are represented diplomatically" is not a criterion for these articles. WP:N is. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article's reliable and verifiable sources support the claim of notability. Lack of resident ambassadors is not a valid criteria for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of resident ambassadors is not a criterion but certainly it would give an indication how each country views the other. If there is a lot of trade, investment, tourism and migration, these are usually triggers for opening an embassy. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourced article on notable subject. Nominator's reasons are not convincing.  Per WP:ATD, its always better to improve an article, than nominate it for deletion because someone else has not done so.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I attempted to look for sources that would bring this past WP:N but there was insufficient reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep due to improvements since first nomination, i.e. editors are actively working to improve and have an interest in this subject. I do not see a reason to stop them while their efforts are still under way.  One other book to consider is The Armenians in history and the Armenian question (Documentary Publications, 1988), which discusses how "Although there are very few Armenians residing in Portugal (less than 200 in 1973), yet the fact that the renowned Gulbenkian Foundation is based ..." Anyway, I found and added a source that discusses when Portugal recognized Armenia's independence.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per A Nobody, MichaelQSchmidt, Alansohn, and RAN ( -1958). The article passes WP:N by having sufficient number of 3rd party independent references. I will also reiterate a point I made at a previous Afd, Articles for deletion/Australia–Kosovo relations (2nd nomination), that all of these relations articles should either be deleted, or all should be kept. According to Articles_for_deletion: "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. However, group nominations that are too large or too loosely related may be split up or speedy-closed." It was argued that this issue was previously argued and so I shouldn't make it, but no one provided me with a cite to a previous discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cdog, you don't seem to fully understand what WP:N says. Yes, the sources need to be 3rd independent. And yes, they need to be reliable. And, yes, the sources you've used to build this article are indeed both of those. But WP:N also says that the sources need to address the subject directly in detail, and none of the cited sources come close to that. Two of the sources are about a dead Armenian millionaire and make absolutely no mention of these countries' relations with each other. New Armenia just mentions, in passing, the date that P recognized A; it does not provide direct, detailed coverage. The newspaper article about the Armenian terrorist attacks similarly lacks any mention of the relations between these countries. I could go on, but you get the point. My promise to you: Show one reliable, 3rd party source that actually discusses these countries relations directly and in some detail, and I'll switch my !vote to neutral. Find me two, and I'll switch it to keep. Yilloslime T C  17:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article currently contains the following links that address the subject matter directly in my opinion, in that they refer either to high level talks between the governments of the two countries, or to high level officials commenting on the state of relations:,  . The absence of these sources at the time this article was nominated for deletion demonstrate the lack of research done to find such sources before nominating this article for deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you indulging my request, but unfortunately none of these articles directly address the topic of A-P relations in any detail. The first three are little news blurbs, none of which exceeds 150 words--hardly "detailed" coverage of the events they discusses, let alone the topic A-P relations. The last one is a little better, but at 321 words, it too hardly constitutes detailed coverage of the meeting it's about, let alone of the uber-topic of A-P relations. Yilloslime T C  19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you have not changed your vote. That is quite disappointing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep already well exceeds the usual inclusion standard, WP:N. No argument presented for why this article merits the unusual and irregular treatment proposed by LibStar. Wily D  17:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * read my original nomination, the article only had 3 sources and there did not appear to be significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Simply showing sources covering non-notable, routine functions of governments doesn't add up to notability to me. The lack of mutual embassies makes their relationship appear even less notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can disagree with each other regard what we personally think is "notable". The presence of sources however does tend to indicate notability under wikipedia's definition.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability≠Notability Yilloslime T C  03:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability through multiple sources as we have here sure does. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Coverage is trivial, relationship is non-existent. No encyclopedic treatment is possible due to the weakness and paucity of the sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article contains one nugget of notable information, which would be better presented on the Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Portugal articles. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * long off topic bickering between editors moved to talk page Yilloslime T C  17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and the absence of any evidence found over a fairly substantial bit of time to show that there is a meaningful bilateral relationship here. There isn't.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is meaningful enough of a relationship to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced article, per above.Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I am now inclined to support delete. There seems to be no significance to this relashionship. They do not appear to have an alliance, nor a significant trading partnersip. In fact they only seem to maintain limited (they do not even appear to have embasys in each others countries) diplomatic ties.Slatersteven (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Above and beyond the inherent notability of such articles, the notability of this article is established by the ample reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Inherent notability? They get deleted all the time. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * seems like an almost identical standard text argument was used here and here. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well since you nominated all of them for deletion, maybe we should just disregard your nominations too. No. Obviously not. The argument that these articles are inherently encyclopedic is a valid point that's been raised before and deserves to be considered here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * and I've used different text and different gnews searches for each. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 10 February 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.