Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portugal–Serbia 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Portugal–Serbia relations

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

whilst the 2 nations have embassies, the coverage is mainly multilateral and sport. there was this meeting this year but they didn't actually sign an agreement, and this meeting but 2 meetings don't make for notable relations. they played a football match in 2007 and I know of at least 1 editor who thinks this advances notability, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I added some external links that could perhaps be used to expand the article and establish notability. I assume that info on relations with Serbia and Montenegro could be included, but info on relations with Yugoslavia belong in a different article. I have expanded the article, which has enough external sources to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I note with regret that LibStar has removed this picture from the article on the grounds that it may not be entirely relevant to an article about the formal relations between the two countries. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per additions by Aymatth2. Notability has been established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent study of the topic as a whole. Blue  Squadron  Raven  04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't buy this argument, and don't see it supported in the Notability guideline. There are reliable (but not independent) sources that cover the subject as a whole, and there are many reliable and independent sources that cover aspects of the subject. There is no original research or synthesis in the article - no unverifiable statements, no attempt to reach a novel conclusion or advance a position. The article simply collects and organizes material on the topic from reliable independent sources. Common sense says that the two countries have an active and evolving relationship that continues to attract attention in the press and is a reasonable subject for an encyclopedia article. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is another quite different argument for retaining this and similar articles on bilateral relations that have substantial content. A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia. Editors may merge such content to a more appropriate article. In this case, the content could be merged to Foreign relations of Portugal, a topic that is indisputably notable. However, if all articles like this one were merged into Foreign relations of Portugal, it would become enormous, greatly exceeding size guidelines. To handle this issue, the notability guideline says that a separate article may be created for formatting and display purposes, even if the subject is not notable in itself - an exception to the rule that notability is not automatically inherited. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Byronwrites (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done that to see the effect. Check Foreign relations of Portugal. It seems awkward to me. The parent, overview-type article now has far too much content on this one relationship. If the decision is to keep this one, I will reverse the merge. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep First, I think that LibStar has done an excellent job in paring down the mass produced articles by the infamous "Groubani", and this is one of them. And this was a piece of Groubani crap when it was first nominated.  The end result of a nomination for deletion is either (a) a lousy article gets deleted or (b) someone works at making a lousy article into a viable article.  I have no use for the concept that a page will magically grow from beans to a beanstalk.  That said, Aymatth2's improvements have made this a good article; and I don't think that Aymatth would have been aware that this needed improvement, but for our attention being drawn to it by LibStar.  Kudos to both nominator and and to a take-charge editor. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- Most X/Y relations pages are fairly useless, but this is one of the exceptions. With the re-write, its a competently written and well sourced article. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per excellent additions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 13 August 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.