Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Romania 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. There's a full debate of the issues, and the general consensus is that this article covers a topic of note. Hiding T 10:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenia–Romania relations

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

While the Armenians of Romania do indeed have a long and illustrious history, there is zero evidence hinting at a notable relationship between the modern-day Republic of Armenia and Romania, so this should be deleted. The one salient point, the presence of embassies, is covered at Diplomatic missions of Armenia and Diplomatic missions of Romania. Biruitorul Talk 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We desperately need better guidelines about when bilateral relationships are notable so as to stop having so very many of these on AfD.  In any case, this meets the general notability guidelines.  See ARMENIA-ROMANIA CULTURAL TIES, Armenian President visits Romania, they have bilateral military cooperation, there's plenty on Lexis-Nexis (email me for more on that), substantial economic ties .  In short, this is a notable relationship and there is plenty of coverage. Cool3 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first link has nothing to do with the modern states, but with the diaspora community. The second mentions a routine bilateral visit that doesn't really constitute evidence of a notable relationship - certainly not something one could write an article about. The third is nothing very concrete: basically a ministerial meeting. The last, again, is ceremonial, symbolic fluff about a "Chamber of Commerce". None of this is convincing evidence that any sort of article, beyond the trivial, could be written on the subject. - Biruitorul Talk 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How is signing a pact for bilateral military cooperation not significant? That's a big deal in international relations. Cool3 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See also (which is oddly formatted on my screen, look at the lefthand column).  See  "Robert Kocharian said, Armenian-Romanian relations play a particular role in the context of Armenia’s European integration."  See, a significant report on a meeting of FMs (also ).  A bilateral agreement on tourism .  Even more significantly, I present the following:"the Prime Minister noted that the Armenian-Romanian friendship was deeply rooted in history and it was not by accident that Romania was the first State to recognize the independence of the Republic Armenia.".  I can continue, but I hope that satisfies you. Cool3 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the pact. North Atlantic Treaty yes, Romania-Armenia pact probably not. The first link is just news - a news brief from Radio Free Europe; no evidence the agreement is at all noteworthy. The second link is a blog and anyway, of course the President is going to say nice words when he accredits an ambassador. The rest are again blogs, primary sources and the like showcasing handshakes, friendly declarations, routine documents, and the like. Yes, the relationship exists; no, there's not enough there to construct a coherent article in narrative prose. (But the AfD does run for a week, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.) - Biruitorul Talk 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Romania was the first country to recognize Armenian independence.  That is a huge deal.  We have a whole article on Armenians of Romania = significant historical and cultural ties.  They've signed numerous bilateral agreements on trade, tourism and the military.  They've exchanged ambassadors.  Relations with Romania are important to Armenian integration into the EU (the President of Armenia even said so).  Yes, one of those links is a blog, but it's a blog holding an archive of a story from a news organizations.  In your opinion, do any countries have significant bilateral relations?  US-UK, I mean come on, of course the President of the US is going to say nice things about the Queen, and all those agreements over the years... just fluff. Cool3 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That Romania was the first to extend recognition is nice, but couldn't that be noted in a table of this sort? Yes, the Armenians of Romania are actually notable, but have zero to do with Armenia-Romania relations -- there was no Armenian state between 1375 and 1991. The presence of ambassadors is recorded at the respective "Diplomatic missions of..." articles, while the bilateral agreements - as I've stressed before - are a routine feature of international relations, happening every week of every year, and not inherently evidence of anything beyond a peaceful but dull relationship. That the President of Armenia said Romania would help his country enter the EU isn't that surprising - he did have to say something when receiving Romania's ambassador, and of course he was going to make some friendly noises about the EU (not that they have a realistic chance, and not that Romania has that much influence over Brussels, but never mind that).
 * And yes, I have no problem with actual articles like Cuba–Venezuela relations or France–Thailand relations - but it's really helpful when relations are documented as such by sources, and don't involve editors stringing together disparate bits of news in an attempt to project the appearance of notability. Still, if something decent can be made of this, I'll gladly even withdraw the nomination. - Biruitorul Talk 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That "stringing together" is a result of the creation of these stubs and the fact that dozens, if not hundreds, have been brought up at AfD in the past couple of days. Some editors would prefer to try and save an article by improving, even if on the fly, than recreating and running the risk of a speedy. You'll see, for instance, that both Marcusmax and I have voted delete on a number of them, so it's not like we're advocating inherent notability for these stubbies. Now, that some of the rescue efforts are attempts to "project the appearance of notability" (my italics, your words) is a. not a nice thing to say and b. puts the cart before the horse: some of these X-Y relations articles are saved, and for the right reasons. In other words, there was a reality behind the appearance, as there may well be here. I wish I had the energy or the talent to make something notable of this one. I'm not entirely sure what the proper format ought to be for these articles, and I'm unable to figure it out right now, given a hefty case of WP:RSV. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My wording there was indeed incautious - I didn't mean to impute sinister motives to anyone. If kept (which seems likely at this point), I look forward to seeing what if any expansion can happen over the coming months. - Biruitorul Talk 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Biruitorul, I know you're not like that, and I apologize for not reading your words in a more friendly manner--I blame my splitting headache and a cold. I've come to know you as someone who doesn't mind changing their mind when presented with evidence, and I hope I'm the same way. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm done, Drmies, and I hope your head improves soon. - Biruitorul Talk 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The historic relations, which are admitted by the nom. to be notable, also come within the title of the article. One would expect every pair of countrieswithin this region to have significant relationships with each other. Not the right choice for which ones to remove. DGG (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I admitted no notability for the Armenia-Romania relationship (which only began in 1992), but for the Armenians in what is now Romania, who have lived there for about 700 years. - Biruitorul Talk 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--I'm swayed by the proximity, first of all (geography here is a pretty good indicator that important ties exist), and second by the references provided by Cool3. Sure, some of it may be "ceremonial fluff"--but really, that's the business of diplomacy, it's all ceremonial fluff to prevent us from constantly killing each other. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article may have been created in bad faith, but it meets WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not call it bad faith, which is a rather serious charge, just perhaps a little carelessly.  DGG (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor who created it (who has since been confirmed to have been a sock puppet) had been repeatedly asked not to create unreferenced stubs of questionable notability (and been blocked at least once for doing so) at the time they created this article. Deliberatly creating bad articles and leaving it to others to find the most basic of sources to meet WP:N is bad faith in my book. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 18 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.